Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] 99%+ reduction in sunrise utilization rate per TLD supports EFF call for elimination of sunrise
I was not going to engage in yet more back and forth on sunrise, but in reading your email, and those of several others, I feel compelled to say something on this by the numbers discussion. This type of metric driven approach is very much akin to driving down a road with blinders on either side. It's a tad pedantic and as we know from history these types of approaches (many times pushed by bureaucrats) can often lead to disastrous decisions (e.g. Soviet style five year plans). You need to look at the overall situation and what is going on, as opposed to just getting caught up in the numbers -- which after all can get sliced and diced any number of ways. The reality is that brand owners are using sunrise to protect their brands in the key extensions that relate to their businesses. The numbers may not be huge per se, but the new gTLD program has pretty much, by all accounts, not been the success that ICANN had hoped for. Moreover, we all know that the success of the extensions has been quite uneven. Some are barely breaking even, some have been a great success, others have failed and yet others have only experienced lackluster results. What all of this means is that some extensions are simply not worth registering in. That being said, sunrise does have an important value. If there are up to 100,000 plus registrations based on bona fide brands, and some on the most valuable brands in the world, then the system is working as it is preventing a significant amount of cybersquatting . If we go by he metrics you love, then it is not rocket science to figure out that a landrush approach is going to lead to a large spike of abuse (as we have seen in the past in no sunrise situations). This in turn leads to significant costs of investigating and pursuing infringements, all of which ultimately leads to more costs to consumers and loss of faith in the integrity of the system -- particularly if consumers get tricked or defrauded by a domain name that appears to be related to a brand (e.g., Gucci.shoes) and which could have been registered during a sunrise period. So while I understand that brand owners are not making sunrise registrations across 1000 plus extensions, the point is that they are generally picking the most logical extensions and are not abusing the sunrise system. So whether the number is one percent or less or ten percent, that number doesn't really tell the story. 100,000 plus sunrise registrations prevents a ton of abuse, which benefits everyone in the end. The numbers only approach really misses the mark. It's like saying that if a disease affects less that 1% of the world population, we should not waste money on finding a cure for it and stop all funding on such research (even though the costs of treating the disease for the less than 1% will be staggeringly high). So in closing, I again urge you to concentrate on trying to find a fix to address the limited speculator issue as opposed to beating a dead horse on the sunrise issue. Original Message From: George Kirikos Sent: Friday, August 11, 2017 12:22 AM To: gnso-rpm-wg Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] 99%+ reduction in sunrise utilization rate per TLD supports EFF call for elimination of sunrise Hello, On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 11:21 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
I don't see the math that created your "talking point" of a "99%+ reduction in sunrise." Can you show your work please?
The post at: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2017-August/002321.html showed numerous sunrise statistics, ranging from 15,000 on the low end for .mobi (.co was slightly lower, although that's a ccTLD, not a TLD that ICANN is involved with in any way), 32,000 for .asia, 80,000 for .biz/.xxx, and who knows what it was for .info? Even taking the lowest of those (15,000) as the base, 130 (average new gTLD sunrise from The Analysis Group report) divided by 15,000 = 0.0087 = 0.87%, which is less than 1%, i.e. a 99%+ reduction. Of course, if one chose a higher base (.asia, .xxx, .biz, .etc.), or an average of those other sunrises, the reduction is even greater than if one had used the lowest sunrise (from .mobi). As for your other statement:
We can't expect Sunrise registrations to outperform the New gTLD Program generally."
While the new gTLD program has been a disaster, it hasn't been an underperformance of 99%+ of expectations (perhaps more like 80% to 90% underperformance). Thus, while it's obvious that both have been failures, sunrise usage is an even greater failure than new gTLDs overall. So, even on that relative scale, the sunrise period should be eliminated. Since I know you'll ask "George, why do you say there's been an 80% or 90% underpeformance for new gTLDs?" let me answer that now to save time. I'll use as my reference (besides the obvious general observations of most informed observers) ICANN's own stats: http://domainincite.com/18857-new-gtld-sales-miss-icann-estimates-by-a-mile where the numbers came in at just 18% of ICANN's original 2014 expectations. For the math-challenged, 100% - 18% = 82% as the level of underperformance. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg ________________________________ Confidentiality Notice: This communication constitutes an electronic communication within the meaning of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 2510, and its disclosure is strictly limited to the recipient intended by the sender of this message. This transmission, and any attachments, may contain confidential attorney-client privileged information and attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. Please contact us immediately by return e-mail or at 404 815 6500, and destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading or saving in any manner. ________________________________ ***DISCLAIMER*** Per Treasury Department Circular 230: Any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein.
I will not dispute the effectiveness of Sunrise periods for rights holders, however there may be better options that provide just as much protection but have less impact on the release of a new TLD. For example, sunrise could be run concurrently with the general launch of a TLD simply by removing the eligible sunrise domain names from the pool of available domain names. Rights holders could still use their TMCH-tokens to register these semi-reserved strings as domain names but the release of the TLD to the general public would not be held back. Other potential registrants would merely receive a notice that this string is reserved until date X due to claimed rights of third parties (which could double as an abbreviated claims notice), or even opt to queue their registration request until the reservation period is over. This would actually solve many of the existing issues. Best, Volker Am 11.08.2017 um 15:12 schrieb Nahitchevansky, Georges:
I was not going to engage in yet more back and forth on sunrise, but in reading your email, and those of several others, I feel compelled to say something on this by the numbers discussion. This type of metric driven approach is very much akin to driving down a road with blinders on either side. It's a tad pedantic and as we know from history these types of approaches (many times pushed by bureaucrats) can often lead to disastrous decisions (e.g. Soviet style five year plans). You need to look at the overall situation and what is going on, as opposed to just getting caught up in the numbers -- which after all can get sliced and diced any number of ways. The reality is that brand owners are using sunrise to protect their brands in the key extensions that relate to their businesses. The numbers may not be huge per se, but the new gTLD program has pretty much, by all accounts, not been the success that ICANN had hoped for. Moreover, we all know that the success of the extensions has been quite uneven. Some are barely breaking even, some have been a great success, others have failed and yet others have only experienced lackluster results. What all of this means is that some extensions are simply not worth registering in.
That being said, sunrise does have an important value. If there are up to 100,000 plus registrations based on bona fide brands, and some on the most valuable brands in the world, then the system is working as it is preventing a significant amount of cybersquatting . If we go by he metrics you love, then it is not rocket science to figure out that a landrush approach is going to lead to a large spike of abuse (as we have seen in the past in no sunrise situations). This in turn leads to significant costs of investigating and pursuing infringements, all of which ultimately leads to more costs to consumers and loss of faith in the integrity of the system -- particularly if consumers get tricked or defrauded by a domain name that appears to be related to a brand (e.g., Gucci.shoes) and which could have been registered during a sunrise period.
So while I understand that brand owners are not making sunrise registrations across 1000 plus extensions, the point is that they are generally picking the most logical extensions and are not abusing the sunrise system. So whether the number is one percent or less or ten percent, that number doesn't really tell the story. 100,000 plus sunrise registrations prevents a ton of abuse, which benefits everyone in the end. The numbers only approach really misses the mark. It's like saying that if a disease affects less that 1% of the world population, we should not waste money on finding a cure for it and stop all funding on such research (even though the costs of treating the disease for the less than 1% will be staggeringly high).
So in closing, I again urge you to concentrate on trying to find a fix to address the limited speculator issue as opposed to beating a dead horse on the sunrise issue.
Original Message From: George Kirikos Sent: Friday, August 11, 2017 12:22 AM To: gnso-rpm-wg Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] 99%+ reduction in sunrise utilization rate per TLD supports EFF call for elimination of sunrise
Hello,
On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 11:21 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
I don't see the math that created your "talking point" of a "99%+ reduction in sunrise." Can you show your work please? The post at:
http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2017-August/002321.html
showed numerous sunrise statistics, ranging from 15,000 on the low end for .mobi (.co was slightly lower, although that's a ccTLD, not a TLD that ICANN is involved with in any way), 32,000 for .asia, 80,000 for .biz/.xxx, and who knows what it was for .info?
Even taking the lowest of those (15,000) as the base, 130 (average new gTLD sunrise from The Analysis Group report) divided by 15,000 = 0.0087 = 0.87%, which is less than 1%, i.e. a 99%+ reduction. Of course, if one chose a higher base (.asia, .xxx, .biz, .etc.), or an average of those other sunrises, the reduction is even greater than if one had used the lowest sunrise (from .mobi).
As for your other statement:
We can't expect Sunrise registrations to outperform the New gTLD Program generally." While the new gTLD program has been a disaster, it hasn't been an underperformance of 99%+ of expectations (perhaps more like 80% to 90% underperformance). Thus, while it's obvious that both have been failures, sunrise usage is an even greater failure than new gTLDs overall. So, even on that relative scale, the sunrise period should be eliminated.
Since I know you'll ask "George, why do you say there's been an 80% or 90% underpeformance for new gTLDs?" let me answer that now to save time. I'll use as my reference (besides the obvious general observations of most informed observers) ICANN's own stats:
http://domainincite.com/18857-new-gtld-sales-miss-icann-estimates-by-a-mile
where the numbers came in at just 18% of ICANN's original 2014 expectations. For the math-challenged, 100% - 18% = 82% as the level of underperformance.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
________________________________
Confidentiality Notice: This communication constitutes an electronic communication within the meaning of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 2510, and its disclosure is strictly limited to the recipient intended by the sender of this message. This transmission, and any attachments, may contain confidential attorney-client privileged information and attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. Please contact us immediately by return e-mail or at 404 815 6500, and destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading or saving in any manner.
________________________________
***DISCLAIMER*** Per Treasury Department Circular 230: Any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein. _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
-- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.twitter.com/key_systems Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.twitter.com/key_systems CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.
Could we use a list of the top brands to establish eligibility for sunise to remove gaming once and for all? Here's a list of 500 as an example. http://brandirectory.com/league_tables/table/global-500-2012 Best regards, Paul. On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 2:44 PM, Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net> wrote:
I will not dispute the effectiveness of Sunrise periods for rights holders, however there may be better options that provide just as much protection but have less impact on the release of a new TLD.
For example, sunrise could be run concurrently with the general launch of a TLD simply by removing the eligible sunrise domain names from the pool of available domain names. Rights holders could still use their TMCH-tokens to register these semi-reserved strings as domain names but the release of the TLD to the general public would not be held back. Other potential registrants would merely receive a notice that this string is reserved until date X due to claimed rights of third parties (which could double as an abbreviated claims notice), or even opt to queue their registration request until the reservation period is over.
This would actually solve many of the existing issues.
Best,
Volker
Am 11.08.2017 um 15:12 schrieb Nahitchevansky, Georges:
I was not going to engage in yet more back and forth on sunrise, but in reading your email, and those of several others, I feel compelled to say something on this by the numbers discussion. This type of metric driven approach is very much akin to driving down a road with blinders on either side. It's a tad pedantic and as we know from history these types of approaches (many times pushed by bureaucrats) can often lead to disastrous decisions (e.g. Soviet style five year plans). You need to look at the overall situation and what is going on, as opposed to just getting caught up in the numbers -- which after all can get sliced and diced any number of ways. The reality is that brand owners are using sunrise to protect their brands in the key extensions that relate to their businesses. The numbers may not be huge per se, but the new gTLD program has pretty much, by all accounts, not been the success that ICANN had hoped for. Moreover, we all know that the success of the extensions has been quite uneven. Some are barely breaking even, some have been a great success, others have failed and yet others have only experienced lackluster results. What all of this means is that some extensions are simply not worth registering in.
That being said, sunrise does have an important value. If there are up to 100,000 plus registrations based on bona fide brands, and some on the most valuable brands in the world, then the system is working as it is preventing a significant amount of cybersquatting . If we go by he metrics you love, then it is not rocket science to figure out that a landrush approach is going to lead to a large spike of abuse (as we have seen in the past in no sunrise situations). This in turn leads to significant costs of investigating and pursuing infringements, all of which ultimately leads to more costs to consumers and loss of faith in the integrity of the system -- particularly if consumers get tricked or defrauded by a domain name that appears to be related to a brand (e.g., Gucci.shoes) and which could have been registered during a sunrise period.
So while I understand that brand owners are not making sunrise registrations across 1000 plus extensions, the point is that they are generally picking the most logical extensions and are not abusing the sunrise system. So whether the number is one percent or less or ten percent, that number doesn't really tell the story. 100,000 plus sunrise registrations prevents a ton of abuse, which benefits everyone in the end. The numbers only approach really misses the mark. It's like saying that if a disease affects less that 1% of the world population, we should not waste money on finding a cure for it and stop all funding on such research (even though the costs of treating the disease for the less than 1% will be staggeringly high).
So in closing, I again urge you to concentrate on trying to find a fix to address the limited speculator issue as opposed to beating a dead horse on the sunrise issue.
Original Message From: George Kirikos Sent: Friday, August 11, 2017 12:22 AM To: gnso-rpm-wg Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] 99%+ reduction in sunrise utilization rate per TLD supports EFF call for elimination of sunrise
Hello,
On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 11:21 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
I don't see the math that created your "talking point" of a "99%+ reduction in sunrise." Can you show your work please?
The post at:
http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2017-August/002321.html
showed numerous sunrise statistics, ranging from 15,000 on the low end for .mobi (.co was slightly lower, although that's a ccTLD, not a TLD that ICANN is involved with in any way), 32,000 for .asia, 80,000 for .biz/.xxx, and who knows what it was for .info?
Even taking the lowest of those (15,000) as the base, 130 (average new gTLD sunrise from The Analysis Group report) divided by 15,000 = 0.0087 = 0.87%, which is less than 1%, i.e. a 99%+ reduction. Of course, if one chose a higher base (.asia, .xxx, .biz, .etc.), or an average of those other sunrises, the reduction is even greater than if one had used the lowest sunrise (from .mobi).
As for your other statement:
We can't expect Sunrise registrations to outperform the New gTLD Program
generally."
While the new gTLD program has been a disaster, it hasn't been an underperformance of 99%+ of expectations (perhaps more like 80% to 90% underperformance). Thus, while it's obvious that both have been failures, sunrise usage is an even greater failure than new gTLDs overall. So, even on that relative scale, the sunrise period should be eliminated.
Since I know you'll ask "George, why do you say there's been an 80% or 90% underpeformance for new gTLDs?" let me answer that now to save time. I'll use as my reference (besides the obvious general observations of most informed observers) ICANN's own stats:
http://domainincite.com/18857-new-gtld-sales-miss-icann-esti mates-by-a-mile
where the numbers came in at just 18% of ICANN's original 2014 expectations. For the math-challenged, 100% - 18% = 82% as the level of underperformance.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
________________________________
Confidentiality Notice: This communication constitutes an electronic communication within the meaning of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 2510, and its disclosure is strictly limited to the recipient intended by the sender of this message. This transmission, and any attachments, may contain confidential attorney-client privileged information and attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. Please contact us immediately by return e-mail or at 404 815 6500, and destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading or saving in any manner.
________________________________
***DISCLAIMER*** Per Treasury Department Circular 230: Any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein. _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
-- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung.
Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung -
Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net
Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com
Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.twitter.com/key_systems
Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu
Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen.
--------------------------------------------
Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Best regards,
Volker A. Greimann - legal department -
Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net
Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com
Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.twitter.com/key_systems
CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu
This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.
_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
I like the fact that we are discussing solutions. But, that would be completely unfair to small businesses, non-profits and individual brand-owners. I could not support. Best, John From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Paul Tattersfield Sent: Friday, August 11, 2017 9:58 AM Cc: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] 99%+ reduction in sunrise utilization rate per TLD supports EFF call for elimination of sunrise Could we use a list of the top brands to establish eligibility for sunise to remove gaming once and for all? Here's a list of 500 as an example. http://brandirectory.com/league_tables/table/global-500-2012<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__brandirectory.com_league-5Ftables_table_global-2D500-2D2012&d=DwMFaQ&c=qmi9WrYRGQEDDOxOwKrAjW7mWovpzN_EKyRbeK_zbP0&r=Kepk-9GEB6JgOj0vUGl8c0hdrRM7FW-8Is-VAQU1VAk&m=HVq0eirQK2J4v6kkgl_shGZYxQ3mk7UhkSSTmGH1fmg&s=f8c4RhcBF8Ae7uqRwQ98nczOKsEF9Sqm1DSUAuOvLq8&e=> Best regards, Paul. On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 2:44 PM, Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>> wrote: I will not dispute the effectiveness of Sunrise periods for rights holders, however there may be better options that provide just as much protection but have less impact on the release of a new TLD. For example, sunrise could be run concurrently with the general launch of a TLD simply by removing the eligible sunrise domain names from the pool of available domain names. Rights holders could still use their TMCH-tokens to register these semi-reserved strings as domain names but the release of the TLD to the general public would not be held back. Other potential registrants would merely receive a notice that this string is reserved until date X due to claimed rights of third parties (which could double as an abbreviated claims notice), or even opt to queue their registration request until the reservation period is over. This would actually solve many of the existing issues. Best, Volker Am 11.08.2017 um 15:12 schrieb Nahitchevansky, Georges: I was not going to engage in yet more back and forth on sunrise, but in reading your email, and those of several others, I feel compelled to say something on this by the numbers discussion. This type of metric driven approach is very much akin to driving down a road with blinders on either side. It's a tad pedantic and as we know from history these types of approaches (many times pushed by bureaucrats) can often lead to disastrous decisions (e.g. Soviet style five year plans). You need to look at the overall situation and what is going on, as opposed to just getting caught up in the numbers -- which after all can get sliced and diced any number of ways. The reality is that brand owners are using sunrise to protect their brands in the key extensions that relate to their businesses. The numbers may not be huge per se, but the new gTLD program has pretty much, by all accounts, not been the success that ICANN had hoped for. Moreover, we all know that the success of the extensions has been quite uneven. Some are barely breaking even, some have been a great success, others have failed and yet others have only experienced lackluster results. What all of this means is that some extensions are simply not worth registering in. That being said, sunrise does have an important value. If there are up to 100,000 plus registrations based on bona fide brands, and some on the most valuable brands in the world, then the system is working as it is preventing a significant amount of cybersquatting . If we go by he metrics you love, then it is not rocket science to figure out that a landrush approach is going to lead to a large spike of abuse (as we have seen in the past in no sunrise situations). This in turn leads to significant costs of investigating and pursuing infringements, all of which ultimately leads to more costs to consumers and loss of faith in the integrity of the system -- particularly if consumers get tricked or defrauded by a domain name that appears to be related to a brand (e.g., Gucci.shoes) and which could have been registered during a sunrise period. So while I understand that brand owners are not making sunrise registrations across 1000 plus extensions, the point is that they are generally picking the most logical extensions and are not abusing the sunrise system. So whether the number is one percent or less or ten percent, that number doesn't really tell the story. 100,000 plus sunrise registrations prevents a ton of abuse, which benefits everyone in the end. The numbers only approach really misses the mark. It's like saying that if a disease affects less that 1% of the world population, we should not waste money on finding a cure for it and stop all funding on such research (even though the costs of treating the disease for the less than 1% will be staggeringly high). So in closing, I again urge you to concentrate on trying to find a fix to address the limited speculator issue as opposed to beating a dead horse on the sunrise issue. Original Message From: George Kirikos Sent: Friday, August 11, 2017 12:22 AM To: gnso-rpm-wg Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] 99%+ reduction in sunrise utilization rate per TLD supports EFF call for elimination of sunrise Hello, On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 11:21 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote: I don't see the math that created your "talking point" of a "99%+ reduction in sunrise." Can you show your work please? The post at: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2017-August/002321.html<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__mm.icann.org_pipermail_gnso-2Drpm-2Dwg_2017-2DAugust_002321.html&d=DwMFaQ&c=qmi9WrYRGQEDDOxOwKrAjW7mWovpzN_EKyRbeK_zbP0&r=Kepk-9GEB6JgOj0vUGl8c0hdrRM7FW-8Is-VAQU1VAk&m=HVq0eirQK2J4v6kkgl_shGZYxQ3mk7UhkSSTmGH1fmg&s=58wFzOl2g5GXuZ-qIJmgC5BGxSLMXXSpwv1SgtsSQZo&e=> showed numerous sunrise statistics, ranging from 15,000 on the low end for .mobi (.co was slightly lower, although that's a ccTLD, not a TLD that ICANN is involved with in any way), 32,000 for .asia, 80,000 for .biz/.xxx, and who knows what it was for .info? Even taking the lowest of those (15,000) as the base, 130 (average new gTLD sunrise from The Analysis Group report) divided by 15,000 = 0.0087 = 0.87%, which is less than 1%, i.e. a 99%+ reduction. Of course, if one chose a higher base (.asia, .xxx, .biz, .etc.), or an average of those other sunrises, the reduction is even greater than if one had used the lowest sunrise (from .mobi). As for your other statement: We can't expect Sunrise registrations to outperform the New gTLD Program generally." While the new gTLD program has been a disaster, it hasn't been an underperformance of 99%+ of expectations (perhaps more like 80% to 90% underperformance). Thus, while it's obvious that both have been failures, sunrise usage is an even greater failure than new gTLDs overall. So, even on that relative scale, the sunrise period should be eliminated. Since I know you'll ask "George, why do you say there's been an 80% or 90% underpeformance for new gTLDs?" let me answer that now to save time. I'll use as my reference (besides the obvious general observations of most informed observers) ICANN's own stats: http://domainincite.com/18857-new-gtld-sales-miss-icann-estimates-by-a-mile<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__domainincite.com_18857-2Dnew-2Dgtld-2Dsales-2Dmiss-2Dicann-2Destimates-2Dby-2Da-2Dmile&d=DwMFaQ&c=qmi9WrYRGQEDDOxOwKrAjW7mWovpzN_EKyRbeK_zbP0&r=Kepk-9GEB6JgOj0vUGl8c0hdrRM7FW-8Is-VAQU1VAk&m=HVq0eirQK2J4v6kkgl_shGZYxQ3mk7UhkSSTmGH1fmg&s=o9l8-bplGl21b16USW4Nx0v9sl-HJs47IjiPUaWTP24&e=> where the numbers came in at just 18% of ICANN's original 2014 expectations. For the math-challenged, 100% - 18% = 82% as the level of underperformance. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269<tel:416-588-0269> http://www.leap.com/<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.leap.com_&d=DwMFaQ&c=qmi9WrYRGQEDDOxOwKrAjW7mWovpzN_EKyRbeK_zbP0&r=Kepk-9GEB6JgOj0vUGl8c0hdrRM7FW-8Is-VAQU1VAk&m=HVq0eirQK2J4v6kkgl_shGZYxQ3mk7UhkSSTmGH1fmg&s=sWoQrIkL2300HpLFwhccwbn6L5ncXqTebA1DQOtoQ-Q&e=> _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_gnso-2Drpm-2Dwg&d=DwMFaQ&c=qmi9WrYRGQEDDOxOwKrAjW7mWovpzN_EKyRbeK_zbP0&r=Kepk-9GEB6JgOj0vUGl8c0hdrRM7FW-8Is-VAQU1VAk&m=HVq0eirQK2J4v6kkgl_shGZYxQ3mk7UhkSSTmGH1fmg&s=jdBiPVg_Y9RQZWOk_exwmWsrkl93YFEW_qv-PQAJ_6E&e=> ________________________________ Confidentiality Notice: This communication constitutes an electronic communication within the meaning of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 2510, and its disclosure is strictly limited to the recipient intended by the sender of this message. This transmission, and any attachments, may contain confidential attorney-client privileged information and attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. Please contact us immediately by return e-mail or at 404 815 6500<tel:404%20815%206500>, and destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading or saving in any manner. ________________________________ ***DISCLAIMER*** Per Treasury Department Circular 230: Any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein. _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_gnso-2Drpm-2Dwg&d=DwMFaQ&c=qmi9WrYRGQEDDOxOwKrAjW7mWovpzN_EKyRbeK_zbP0&r=Kepk-9GEB6JgOj0vUGl8c0hdrRM7FW-8Is-VAQU1VAk&m=HVq0eirQK2J4v6kkgl_shGZYxQ3mk7UhkSSTmGH1fmg&s=jdBiPVg_Y9RQZWOk_exwmWsrkl93YFEW_qv-PQAJ_6E&e=> -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901<tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20901> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851<tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20851> Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.key-2Dsystems.net&d=...> / www.RRPproxy.net<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.RRPproxy.net&d=DwMFa...> www.domaindiscount24.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.domaindiscount24.com...> / www.BrandShelter.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.BrandShelter.com&d=D...> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.facebook.com_KeySyst...> www.twitter.com/key_systems<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.twitter.com_key-5Fsy...> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.keydrive.lu&d=DwMFaQ...> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901<tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20901> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851<tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20851> Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.key-2Dsystems.net&d=...> / www.RRPproxy.net<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.RRPproxy.net&d=DwMFa...> www.domaindiscount24.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.domaindiscount24.com...> / www.BrandShelter.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.BrandShelter.com&d=D...> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.facebook.com_KeySyst...> www.twitter.com/key_systems<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.twitter.com_key-5Fsy...> CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.keydrive.lu&d=DwMFaQ...> This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone. _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_gnso-2Drpm-2Dwg&d=DwMFaQ&c=qmi9WrYRGQEDDOxOwKrAjW7mWovpzN_EKyRbeK_zbP0&r=Kepk-9GEB6JgOj0vUGl8c0hdrRM7FW-8Is-VAQU1VAk&m=HVq0eirQK2J4v6kkgl_shGZYxQ3mk7UhkSSTmGH1fmg&s=jdBiPVg_Y9RQZWOk_exwmWsrkl93YFEW_qv-PQAJ_6E&e=> Confidentiality Notice This message is intended exclusively for the individual or entity to which it is addressed. This communication may contain information that is proprietary, privileged, confidential or otherwise legally exempt from disclosure. If you are not the named addressee, you are not authorized to read, print, retain, copy or disseminate this message or any part of it. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately either by phone (800-237-2000) or reply to this e-mail and delete all copies of this message.
This is GPML all over again and is DOA. In addition to John’s comment, no one will ever agree who should be on this list, especially those who don’t make it on the list. Best regards, Marc H. Trachtenberg Shareholder Greenberg Traurig, LLP | 77 West Wacker Drive | Suite 3100 | Chicago, IL 60601 Tel 312.456.1020 Mobile 773.677.3305 trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com<mailto:trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com> | www.gtlaw.com<http://www.gtlaw.com/> [Greenberg Traurig] From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of John McElwaine Sent: Friday, August 11, 2017 9:01 AM To: Paul Tattersfield Cc: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] 99%+ reduction in sunrise utilization rate per TLD supports EFF call for elimination of sunrise I like the fact that we are discussing solutions. But, that would be completely unfair to small businesses, non-profits and individual brand-owners. I could not support. Best, John From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Paul Tattersfield Sent: Friday, August 11, 2017 9:58 AM Cc: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] 99%+ reduction in sunrise utilization rate per TLD supports EFF call for elimination of sunrise Could we use a list of the top brands to establish eligibility for sunise to remove gaming once and for all? Here's a list of 500 as an example. https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__brandirectory.com_league... <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__brandirectory.com_league...> Best regards, Paul. On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 2:44 PM, Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>> wrote: I will not dispute the effectiveness of Sunrise periods for rights holders, however there may be better options that provide just as much protection but have less impact on the release of a new TLD. For example, sunrise could be run concurrently with the general launch of a TLD simply by removing the eligible sunrise domain names from the pool of available domain names. Rights holders could still use their TMCH-tokens to register these semi-reserved strings as domain names but the release of the TLD to the general public would not be held back. Other potential registrants would merely receive a notice that this string is reserved until date X due to claimed rights of third parties (which could double as an abbreviated claims notice), or even opt to queue their registration request until the reservation period is over. This would actually solve many of the existing issues. Best, Volker Am 11.08.2017 um 15:12 schrieb Nahitchevansky, Georges: I was not going to engage in yet more back and forth on sunrise, but in reading your email, and those of several others, I feel compelled to say something on this by the numbers discussion. This type of metric driven approach is very much akin to driving down a road with blinders on either side. It's a tad pedantic and as we know from history these types of approaches (many times pushed by bureaucrats) can often lead to disastrous decisions (e.g. Soviet style five year plans). You need to look at the overall situation and what is going on, as opposed to just getting caught up in the numbers -- which after all can get sliced and diced any number of ways. The reality is that brand owners are using sunrise to protect their brands in the key extensions that relate to their businesses. The numbers may not be huge per se, but the new gTLD program has pretty much, by all accounts, not been the success that ICANN had hoped for. Moreover, we all know that the success of the extensions has been quite uneven. Some are barely breaking even, some have been a great success, others have failed and yet others have only experienced lackluster results. What all of this means is that some extensions are simply not worth registering in. That being said, sunrise does have an important value. If there are up to 100,000 plus registrations based on bona fide brands, and some on the most valuable brands in the world, then the system is working as it is preventing a significant amount of cybersquatting . If we go by he metrics you love, then it is not rocket science to figure out that a landrush approach is going to lead to a large spike of abuse (as we have seen in the past in no sunrise situations). This in turn leads to significant costs of investigating and pursuing infringements, all of which ultimately leads to more costs to consumers and loss of faith in the integrity of the system -- particularly if consumers get tricked or defrauded by a domain name that appears to be related to a brand (e.g., Gucci.shoes) and which could have been registered during a sunrise period. So while I understand that brand owners are not making sunrise registrations across 1000 plus extensions, the point is that they are generally picking the most logical extensions and are not abusing the sunrise system. So whether the number is one percent or less or ten percent, that number doesn't really tell the story. 100,000 plus sunrise registrations prevents a ton of abuse, which benefits everyone in the end. The numbers only approach really misses the mark. It's like saying that if a disease affects less that 1% of the world population, we should not waste money on finding a cure for it and stop all funding on such research (even though the costs of treating the disease for the less than 1% will be staggeringly high). So in closing, I again urge you to concentrate on trying to find a fix to address the limited speculator issue as opposed to beating a dead horse on the sunrise issue. Original Message From: George Kirikos Sent: Friday, August 11, 2017 12:22 AM To: gnso-rpm-wg Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] 99%+ reduction in sunrise utilization rate per TLD supports EFF call for elimination of sunrise Hello, On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 11:21 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote: I don't see the math that created your "talking point" of a "99%+ reduction in sunrise." Can you show your work please? The post at: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__mm.icann.org_pipermail_g... <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__mm.icann.org_pipermail_g...> showed numerous sunrise statistics, ranging from 15,000 on the low end for .mobi (.co was slightly lower, although that's a ccTLD, not a TLD that ICANN is involved with in any way), 32,000 for .asia, 80,000 for .biz/.xxx, and who knows what it was for .info? Even taking the lowest of those (15,000) as the base, 130 (average new gTLD sunrise from The Analysis Group report) divided by 15,000 = 0.0087 = 0.87%, which is less than 1%, i.e. a 99%+ reduction. Of course, if one chose a higher base (.asia, .xxx, .biz, .etc.), or an average of those other sunrises, the reduction is even greater than if one had used the lowest sunrise (from .mobi). As for your other statement: We can't expect Sunrise registrations to outperform the New gTLD Program generally." While the new gTLD program has been a disaster, it hasn't been an underperformance of 99%+ of expectations (perhaps more like 80% to 90% underperformance). Thus, while it's obvious that both have been failures, sunrise usage is an even greater failure than new gTLDs overall. So, even on that relative scale, the sunrise period should be eliminated. Since I know you'll ask "George, why do you say there's been an 80% or 90% underpeformance for new gTLDs?" let me answer that now to save time. I'll use as my reference (besides the obvious general observations of most informed observers) ICANN's own stats: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__domainincite.com_18857-2... <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__domainincite.com_18857-2...> where the numbers came in at just 18% of ICANN's original 2014 expectations. For the math-challenged, 100% - 18% = 82% as the level of underperformance. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269<tel:416-588-0269> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.leap.com_&d=DwIGaQ&c... <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.leap.com_&d=DwMFaQ&c...> _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li... <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...> ________________________________ Confidentiality Notice: This communication constitutes an electronic communication within the meaning of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 2510, and its disclosure is strictly limited to the recipient intended by the sender of this message. This transmission, and any attachments, may contain confidential attorney-client privileged information and attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. Please contact us immediately by return e-mail or at 404 815 6500<tel:404%20815%206500>, and destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading or saving in any manner. ________________________________ ***DISCLAIMER*** Per Treasury Department Circular 230: Any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein. _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li... <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...> -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901<tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20901> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851<tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20851> Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.key-2Dsystems.net&d=...> / www.RRPproxy.net<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.RRPproxy.net&d=DwMFa...> www.domaindiscount24.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.domaindiscount24.com...> / www.BrandShelter.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.BrandShelter.com&d=D...> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.facebook.com_KeySyst...> www.twitter.com/key_systems<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.twitter.com_key-5Fsy...> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.keydrive.lu&d=DwMFaQ...> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901<tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20901> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851<tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20851> Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.key-2Dsystems.net&d=...> / www.RRPproxy.net<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.RRPproxy.net&d=DwMFa...> www.domaindiscount24.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.domaindiscount24.com...> / www.BrandShelter.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.BrandShelter.com&d=D...> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.facebook.com_KeySyst...> www.twitter.com/key_systems<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.twitter.com_key-5Fsy...> CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.keydrive.lu&d=DwMFaQ...> This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone. _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li... <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...> Confidentiality Notice This message is intended exclusively for the individual or entity to which it is addressed. This communication may contain information that is proprietary, privileged, confidential or otherwise legally exempt from disclosure. If you are not the named addressee, you are not authorized to read, print, retain, copy or disseminate this message or any part of it. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately either by phone (800-237-2000) or reply to this e-mail and delete all copies of this message. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- If you are not an intended recipient of confidential and privileged information in this email, please delete it, notify us immediately at postmaster@gtlaw.com, and do not use or disseminate such information.
I like Volker's idea at first glance. It seems at least worthy of exploration whether indeed it "would solve many of the existing issues." Volker could you provide a litte more depth to that -- what issues you think might be solved? Thanks, Mike Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 6:44 AM, Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net> wrote:
I will not dispute the effectiveness of Sunrise periods for rights holders, however there may be better options that provide just as much protection but have less impact on the release of a new TLD.
For example, sunrise could be run concurrently with the general launch of a TLD simply by removing the eligible sunrise domain names from the pool of available domain names. Rights holders could still use their TMCH-tokens to register these semi-reserved strings as domain names but the release of the TLD to the general public would not be held back. Other potential registrants would merely receive a notice that this string is reserved until date X due to claimed rights of third parties (which could double as an abbreviated claims notice), or even opt to queue their registration request until the reservation period is over.
This would actually solve many of the existing issues.
Best,
Volker
Am 11.08.2017 um 15:12 schrieb Nahitchevansky, Georges:
I was not going to engage in yet more back and forth on sunrise, but in reading your email, and those of several others, I feel compelled to say something on this by the numbers discussion. This type of metric driven approach is very much akin to driving down a road with blinders on either side. It's a tad pedantic and as we know from history these types of approaches (many times pushed by bureaucrats) can often lead to disastrous decisions (e.g. Soviet style five year plans). You need to look at the overall situation and what is going on, as opposed to just getting caught up in the numbers -- which after all can get sliced and diced any number of ways. The reality is that brand owners are using sunrise to protect their brands in the key extensions that relate to their businesses. The numbers may not be huge per se, but the new gTLD program has pretty much, by all accounts, not been the success that ICANN had hoped for. Moreover, we all know that the success of the extensions has been quite uneven. Some are barely breaking even, some have been a great success, others have failed and yet others have only experienced lackluster results. What all of this means is that some extensions are simply not worth registering in.
That being said, sunrise does have an important value. If there are up to 100,000 plus registrations based on bona fide brands, and some on the most valuable brands in the world, then the system is working as it is preventing a significant amount of cybersquatting . If we go by he metrics you love, then it is not rocket science to figure out that a landrush approach is going to lead to a large spike of abuse (as we have seen in the past in no sunrise situations). This in turn leads to significant costs of investigating and pursuing infringements, all of which ultimately leads to more costs to consumers and loss of faith in the integrity of the system -- particularly if consumers get tricked or defrauded by a domain name that appears to be related to a brand (e.g., Gucci.shoes) and which could have been registered during a sunrise period.
So while I understand that brand owners are not making sunrise registrations across 1000 plus extensions, the point is that they are generally picking the most logical extensions and are not abusing the sunrise system. So whether the number is one percent or less or ten percent, that number doesn't really tell the story. 100,000 plus sunrise registrations prevents a ton of abuse, which benefits everyone in the end. The numbers only approach really misses the mark. It's like saying that if a disease affects less that 1% of the world population, we should not waste money on finding a cure for it and stop all funding on such research (even though the costs of treating the disease for the less than 1% will be staggeringly high).
So in closing, I again urge you to concentrate on trying to find a fix to address the limited speculator issue as opposed to beating a dead horse on the sunrise issue.
Original Message From: George Kirikos Sent: Friday, August 11, 2017 12:22 AM To: gnso-rpm-wg Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] 99%+ reduction in sunrise utilization rate per TLD supports EFF call for elimination of sunrise
Hello,
On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 11:21 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
I don't see the math that created your "talking point" of a "99%+ reduction in sunrise." Can you show your work please?
The post at:
http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2017-August/002321.html
showed numerous sunrise statistics, ranging from 15,000 on the low end for .mobi (.co was slightly lower, although that's a ccTLD, not a TLD that ICANN is involved with in any way), 32,000 for .asia, 80,000 for .biz/.xxx, and who knows what it was for .info?
Even taking the lowest of those (15,000) as the base, 130 (average new gTLD sunrise from The Analysis Group report) divided by 15,000 = 0.0087 = 0.87%, which is less than 1%, i.e. a 99%+ reduction. Of course, if one chose a higher base (.asia, .xxx, .biz, .etc.), or an average of those other sunrises, the reduction is even greater than if one had used the lowest sunrise (from .mobi).
As for your other statement:
We can't expect Sunrise registrations to outperform the New gTLD Program
generally."
While the new gTLD program has been a disaster, it hasn't been an underperformance of 99%+ of expectations (perhaps more like 80% to 90% underperformance). Thus, while it's obvious that both have been failures, sunrise usage is an even greater failure than new gTLDs overall. So, even on that relative scale, the sunrise period should be eliminated.
Since I know you'll ask "George, why do you say there's been an 80% or 90% underpeformance for new gTLDs?" let me answer that now to save time. I'll use as my reference (besides the obvious general observations of most informed observers) ICANN's own stats:
http://domainincite.com/18857-new-gtld-sales-miss-icann-esti mates-by-a-mile
where the numbers came in at just 18% of ICANN's original 2014 expectations. For the math-challenged, 100% - 18% = 82% as the level of underperformance.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
________________________________
Confidentiality Notice: This communication constitutes an electronic communication within the meaning of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 2510, and its disclosure is strictly limited to the recipient intended by the sender of this message. This transmission, and any attachments, may contain confidential attorney-client privileged information and attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. Please contact us immediately by return e-mail or at 404 815 6500, and destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading or saving in any manner.
________________________________
***DISCLAIMER*** Per Treasury Department Circular 230: Any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein. _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
-- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung.
Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung -
Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net
Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com
Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.twitter.com/key_systems
Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu
Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen.
--------------------------------------------
Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Best regards,
Volker A. Greimann - legal department -
Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net
Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com
Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.twitter.com/key_systems
CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu
This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.
_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
One other question. How do you propose removing the eligible sunrise domain names from the pool of available domain names? Would the TMCH provide a list of all unique marks registered to each registrar? Best regards, Marc H. Trachtenberg Shareholder Greenberg Traurig, LLP | 77 West Wacker Drive | Suite 3100 | Chicago, IL 60601 Tel 312.456.1020 Mobile 773.677.3305 trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com<mailto:trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com> | www.gtlaw.com<http://www.gtlaw.com/> [Greenberg Traurig] From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh Sent: Friday, August 11, 2017 1:13 PM To: Volker Greimann Cc: David A. Tait Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] 99%+ reduction in sunrise utilization rate per TLD supports EFF call for elimination of sunrise I like Volker's idea at first glance. It seems at least worthy of exploration whether indeed it "would solve many of the existing issues." Volker could you provide a litte more depth to that -- what issues you think might be solved? Thanks, Mike Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__rodenbaugh.com&d=DwIGaQ&... <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__rodenbaugh.com&d=DwMFaQ&...> On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 6:44 AM, Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>> wrote: I will not dispute the effectiveness of Sunrise periods for rights holders, however there may be better options that provide just as much protection but have less impact on the release of a new TLD. For example, sunrise could be run concurrently with the general launch of a TLD simply by removing the eligible sunrise domain names from the pool of available domain names. Rights holders could still use their TMCH-tokens to register these semi-reserved strings as domain names but the release of the TLD to the general public would not be held back. Other potential registrants would merely receive a notice that this string is reserved until date X due to claimed rights of third parties (which could double as an abbreviated claims notice), or even opt to queue their registration request until the reservation period is over. This would actually solve many of the existing issues. Best, Volker Am 11.08.2017 um 15:12 schrieb Nahitchevansky, Georges: I was not going to engage in yet more back and forth on sunrise, but in reading your email, and those of several others, I feel compelled to say something on this by the numbers discussion. This type of metric driven approach is very much akin to driving down a road with blinders on either side. It's a tad pedantic and as we know from history these types of approaches (many times pushed by bureaucrats) can often lead to disastrous decisions (e.g. Soviet style five year plans). You need to look at the overall situation and what is going on, as opposed to just getting caught up in the numbers -- which after all can get sliced and diced any number of ways. The reality is that brand owners are using sunrise to protect their brands in the key extensions that relate to their businesses. The numbers may not be huge per se, but the new gTLD program has pretty much, by all accounts, not been the success that ICANN had hoped for. Moreover, we all know that the success of the extensions has been quite uneven. Some are barely breaking even, some have been a great success, others have failed and yet others have only experienced lackluster results. What all of this means is that some extensions are simply not worth registering in. That being said, sunrise does have an important value. If there are up to 100,000 plus registrations based on bona fide brands, and some on the most valuable brands in the world, then the system is working as it is preventing a significant amount of cybersquatting . If we go by he metrics you love, then it is not rocket science to figure out that a landrush approach is going to lead to a large spike of abuse (as we have seen in the past in no sunrise situations). This in turn leads to significant costs of investigating and pursuing infringements, all of which ultimately leads to more costs to consumers and loss of faith in the integrity of the system -- particularly if consumers get tricked or defrauded by a domain name that appears to be related to a brand (e.g., Gucci.shoes) and which could have been registered during a sunrise period. So while I understand that brand owners are not making sunrise registrations across 1000 plus extensions, the point is that they are generally picking the most logical extensions and are not abusing the sunrise system. So whether the number is one percent or less or ten percent, that number doesn't really tell the story. 100,000 plus sunrise registrations prevents a ton of abuse, which benefits everyone in the end. The numbers only approach really misses the mark. It's like saying that if a disease affects less that 1% of the world population, we should not waste money on finding a cure for it and stop all funding on such research (even though the costs of treating the disease for the less than 1% will be staggeringly high). So in closing, I again urge you to concentrate on trying to find a fix to address the limited speculator issue as opposed to beating a dead horse on the sunrise issue. Original Message From: George Kirikos Sent: Friday, August 11, 2017 12:22 AM To: gnso-rpm-wg Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] 99%+ reduction in sunrise utilization rate per TLD supports EFF call for elimination of sunrise Hello, On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 11:21 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote: I don't see the math that created your "talking point" of a "99%+ reduction in sunrise." Can you show your work please? The post at: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__mm.icann.org_pipermail_g... <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__mm.icann.org_pipermail_g...> showed numerous sunrise statistics, ranging from 15,000 on the low end for .mobi (.co was slightly lower, although that's a ccTLD, not a TLD that ICANN is involved with in any way), 32,000 for .asia, 80,000 for .biz/.xxx, and who knows what it was for .info? Even taking the lowest of those (15,000) as the base, 130 (average new gTLD sunrise from The Analysis Group report) divided by 15,000 = 0.0087 = 0.87%, which is less than 1%, i.e. a 99%+ reduction. Of course, if one chose a higher base (.asia, .xxx, .biz, .etc.), or an average of those other sunrises, the reduction is even greater than if one had used the lowest sunrise (from .mobi). As for your other statement: We can't expect Sunrise registrations to outperform the New gTLD Program generally." While the new gTLD program has been a disaster, it hasn't been an underperformance of 99%+ of expectations (perhaps more like 80% to 90% underperformance). Thus, while it's obvious that both have been failures, sunrise usage is an even greater failure than new gTLDs overall. So, even on that relative scale, the sunrise period should be eliminated. Since I know you'll ask "George, why do you say there's been an 80% or 90% underpeformance for new gTLDs?" let me answer that now to save time. I'll use as my reference (besides the obvious general observations of most informed observers) ICANN's own stats: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__domainincite.com_18857-2... <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__domainincite.com_18857-2...> where the numbers came in at just 18% of ICANN's original 2014 expectations. For the math-challenged, 100% - 18% = 82% as the level of underperformance. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269<tel:416-588-0269> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.leap.com_&d=DwIGaQ&c... <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.leap.com_&d=DwMFaQ&c...> _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li... <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...> ________________________________ Confidentiality Notice: This communication constitutes an electronic communication within the meaning of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 2510, and its disclosure is strictly limited to the recipient intended by the sender of this message. This transmission, and any attachments, may contain confidential attorney-client privileged information and attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. Please contact us immediately by return e-mail or at 404 815 6500<tel:404%20815%206500>, and destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading or saving in any manner. ________________________________ ***DISCLAIMER*** Per Treasury Department Circular 230: Any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein. _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li... <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...> -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901<tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20901> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851<tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20851> Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.key-2Dsystems.net&d=...> / www.RRPproxy.net<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.RRPproxy.net&d=DwMFa...> www.domaindiscount24.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.domaindiscount24.com...> / www.BrandShelter.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.BrandShelter.com&d=D...> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.facebook.com_KeySyst...> www.twitter.com/key_systems<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.twitter.com_key-5Fsy...> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.keydrive.lu&d=DwMFaQ...> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901<tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20901> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851<tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20851> Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.key-2Dsystems.net&d=...> / www.RRPproxy.net<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.RRPproxy.net&d=DwMFa...> www.domaindiscount24.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.domaindiscount24.com...> / www.BrandShelter.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.BrandShelter.com&d=D...> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.facebook.com_KeySyst...> www.twitter.com/key_systems<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.twitter.com_key-5Fsy...> CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.keydrive.lu&d=DwMFaQ...> This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone. _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li... <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- If you are not an intended recipient of confidential and privileged information in this email, please delete it, notify us immediately at postmaster@gtlaw.com, and do not use or disseminate such information.
The DNL (the list of TMCH registered marks) is currently provided to the registry operators already. Registries already have systems that communicate to registrars that a domain is unavailable for registration. I don’t see any reason why any such sunrise earmarked domains would be treated differently from other registry-reserved domain names. The important thing would be to phrase the rule permissively, so a registry does not have to modify systems if it chooses to run a consecutive Sunrise/Landrush/GA. Jonathan Frost General Counsel Telephone: (+1)877-707-5752 100 SE 3rd Avenue, #1310 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33394 E-Mail: <mailto:jonathan@get.club> jonathan@get.club Website: <http://www.get.club/> www.get.club <https://app.getsignals.com/link?url=http%3a%2f%2fwww.nic.club%2f&ukey=agxzfn...> Please be advised that this communication is confidential. The information contained in this e-mail, and any attachments, may also be attorney-client privileged and/or work product confidential. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify Jonathan Frost by telephone at 877.707.5752 or by email at <mailto:jonathan@get.club> jonathan@get.club and delete the original message. From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com Sent: Friday, August 11, 2017 2:19 PM To: mike@rodenbaugh.com; vgreimann@key-systems.net Cc: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] 99%+ reduction in sunrise utilization rate per TLD supports EFF call for elimination of sunrise One other question. How do you propose removing the eligible sunrise domain names from the pool of available domain names? Would the TMCH provide a list of all unique marks registered to each registrar? Best regards, Marc H. Trachtenberg Shareholder Greenberg Traurig, LLP | 77 West Wacker Drive | Suite 3100 | Chicago, IL 60601 Tel 312.456.1020 Mobile 773.677.3305 <mailto:trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com> trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com | <http://www.gtlaw.com/> www.gtlaw.com From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh Sent: Friday, August 11, 2017 1:13 PM To: Volker Greimann Cc: David A. Tait Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] 99%+ reduction in sunrise utilization rate per TLD supports EFF call for elimination of sunrise I like Volker's idea at first glance. It seems at least worthy of exploration whether indeed it "would solve many of the existing issues." Volker could you provide a litte more depth to that -- what issues you think might be solved? Thanks, Mike Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__rodenbaugh.com&d=DwMFaQ&...> On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 6:44 AM, Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> > wrote: I will not dispute the effectiveness of Sunrise periods for rights holders, however there may be better options that provide just as much protection but have less impact on the release of a new TLD. For example, sunrise could be run concurrently with the general launch of a TLD simply by removing the eligible sunrise domain names from the pool of available domain names. Rights holders could still use their TMCH-tokens to register these semi-reserved strings as domain names but the release of the TLD to the general public would not be held back. Other potential registrants would merely receive a notice that this string is reserved until date X due to claimed rights of third parties (which could double as an abbreviated claims notice), or even opt to queue their registration request until the reservation period is over. This would actually solve many of the existing issues. Best, Volker Am 11.08.2017 um 15:12 schrieb Nahitchevansky, Georges: I was not going to engage in yet more back and forth on sunrise, but in reading your email, and those of several others, I feel compelled to say something on this by the numbers discussion. This type of metric driven approach is very much akin to driving down a road with blinders on either side. It's a tad pedantic and as we know from history these types of approaches (many times pushed by bureaucrats) can often lead to disastrous decisions (e.g. Soviet style five year plans). You need to look at the overall situation and what is going on, as opposed to just getting caught up in the numbers -- which after all can get sliced and diced any number of ways. The reality is that brand owners are using sunrise to protect their brands in the key extensions that relate to their businesses. The numbers may not be huge per se, but the new gTLD program has pretty much, by all accounts, not been the success that ICANN had hoped for. Moreover, we all know that the success of the extensions has been quite uneven. Some are barely breaking even, some have been a great success, others have failed and yet others have only experienced lackluster results. What all of this means is that some extensions are simply not worth registering in. That being said, sunrise does have an important value. If there are up to 100,000 plus registrations based on bona fide brands, and some on the most valuable brands in the world, then the system is working as it is preventing a significant amount of cybersquatting . If we go by he metrics you love, then it is not rocket science to figure out that a landrush approach is going to lead to a large spike of abuse (as we have seen in the past in no sunrise situations). This in turn leads to significant costs of investigating and pursuing infringements, all of which ultimately leads to more costs to consumers and loss of faith in the integrity of the system -- particularly if consumers get tricked or defrauded by a domain name that appears to be related to a brand (e.g., Gucci.shoes) and which could have been registered during a sunrise period. So while I understand that brand owners are not making sunrise registrations across 1000 plus extensions, the point is that they are generally picking the most logical extensions and are not abusing the sunrise system. So whether the number is one percent or less or ten percent, that number doesn't really tell the story. 100,000 plus sunrise registrations prevents a ton of abuse, which benefits everyone in the end. The numbers only approach really misses the mark. It's like saying that if a disease affects less that 1% of the world population, we should not waste money on finding a cure for it and stop all funding on such research (even though the costs of treating the disease for the less than 1% will be staggeringly high). So in closing, I again urge you to concentrate on trying to find a fix to address the limited speculator issue as opposed to beating a dead horse on the sunrise issue. Original Message From: George Kirikos Sent: Friday, August 11, 2017 12:22 AM To: gnso-rpm-wg Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] 99%+ reduction in sunrise utilization rate per TLD supports EFF call for elimination of sunrise Hello, On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 11:21 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> > wrote: I don't see the math that created your "talking point" of a "99%+ reduction in sunrise." Can you show your work please? The post at: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2017-August/002321.html <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__mm.icann.org_pipermail_g...> showed numerous sunrise statistics, ranging from 15,000 on the low end for .mobi (.co was slightly lower, although that's a ccTLD, not a TLD that ICANN is involved with in any way), 32,000 for .asia, 80,000 for .biz/.xxx, and who knows what it was for .info? Even taking the lowest of those (15,000) as the base, 130 (average new gTLD sunrise from The Analysis Group report) divided by 15,000 = 0.0087 = 0.87%, which is less than 1%, i.e. a 99%+ reduction. Of course, if one chose a higher base (.asia, .xxx, .biz, .etc.), or an average of those other sunrises, the reduction is even greater than if one had used the lowest sunrise (from .mobi). As for your other statement: We can't expect Sunrise registrations to outperform the New gTLD Program generally." While the new gTLD program has been a disaster, it hasn't been an underperformance of 99%+ of expectations (perhaps more like 80% to 90% underperformance). Thus, while it's obvious that both have been failures, sunrise usage is an even greater failure than new gTLDs overall. So, even on that relative scale, the sunrise period should be eliminated. Since I know you'll ask "George, why do you say there's been an 80% or 90% underpeformance for new gTLDs?" let me answer that now to save time. I'll use as my reference (besides the obvious general observations of most informed observers) ICANN's own stats: http://domainincite.com/18857-new-gtld-sales-miss-icann-estimates-by-a-mile <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__domainincite.com_18857-2...> where the numbers came in at just 18% of ICANN's original 2014 expectations. For the math-challenged, 100% - 18% = 82% as the level of underperformance. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 <tel:416-588-0269> http://www.leap.com/ <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.leap.com_&d=DwMFaQ&c...> _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...> ________________________________ Confidentiality Notice: This communication constitutes an electronic communication within the meaning of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 2510, and its disclosure is strictly limited to the recipient intended by the sender of this message. This transmission, and any attachments, may contain confidential attorney-client privileged information and attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. Please contact us immediately by return e-mail or at 404 815 6500 <tel:404%20815%206500> , and destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading or saving in any manner. ________________________________ ***DISCLAIMER*** Per Treasury Department Circular 230: Any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein. _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...> -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 <tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20901> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 <tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20851> Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.key-2Dsystems.net&d=...> / www.RRPproxy.net <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.RRPproxy.net&d=DwMFa...> www.domaindiscount24.com <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.domaindiscount24.com...> / www.BrandShelter.com <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.BrandShelter.com&d=D...> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.facebook.com_KeySyst...> www.twitter.com/key_systems <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.twitter.com_key-5Fsy...> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.keydrive.lu&d=DwMFaQ...> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 <tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20901> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 <tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20851> Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.key-2Dsystems.net&d=...> / www.RRPproxy.net <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.RRPproxy.net&d=DwMFa...> www.domaindiscount24.com <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.domaindiscount24.com...> / www.BrandShelter.com <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.BrandShelter.com&d=D...> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.facebook.com_KeySyst...> www.twitter.com/key_systems <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.twitter.com_key-5Fsy...> CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.keydrive.lu&d=DwMFaQ...> This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone. _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...> _____ If you are not an intended recipient of confidential and privileged information in this email, please delete it, notify us immediately at postmaster@gtlaw.com <mailto:postmaster@gtlaw.com> , and do not use or disseminate such information.
To reduce the number of emails, I'll respond to several recent emails in a single (long) email, with a table of contents (!) to help preview what's coming. Table of Contents ----------------- 1. Response to Georges N. 2. Response to Volker 3. Response to Paul T. 4. Response to John M. 5. Sunrise periods are discrimination 6. Response to Marc M. 7. Response to Cyntia 8. Why aren't there sunrises at the top level? 1. Georges N. wrote: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2017-August/002332.html and attempted to argue that if sunrise were eliminated, there'd be "a large spike of abuse". This completely ignores the fact that the trademark holder has the option to simply pursue the domain name in the landrush instead. In other words, giving up the sunrise doesn't mean that the former users of sunrise can't obtain the domain name --- they can, under a level playing field of landrush. I outlined the exact scenarios that would exist at http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2017-August/002286.html for a system without sunrise. Those are not unreasonable to trademark holders (see discussion later), especially if complemented with even more stringent requirements for landrush users (e.g. loser pays, or the other stuff discussed in April, etc.) Gucci.shoes could be registered in landrush instead. All the claimed "costs" of pursuing infringements, etc. don't materialize, because Gucci could certainly be victorious if there was any contention during the landrush period with a competing registrant for Gucci.shoes. Georges N. claims "they are not abusing the sunrise system". Many would beg to differ, when trademark holders are jumping the queue to get first dibs on dictionary words, etc. that have many competing uses. They're treating sunrises as an entitlement, but it's not a right that exists in law. ICANN repeatedly says that they only reflect existing legal rights, but instead they create *new* rights that do not exist in law. Here's an example that might be interesting. How was Flowers.delivery created on February 3, 2015? https://whois.domaintools.com/flowers.delivery by 1-800-Flowers.com? This was a domain name discussed on one of the domain industry blogs: https://www.thedomains.com/2015/09/05/google-registers-alphabet-sex-in-sunri... The same creation date as Yahoo.delivery: https://whois.domaintools.com/yahoo.delivery (presumably a sunrise?) and according to Instra, Donuts didn't launch Landrush until February 4, 2015: https://www.instra.com/en/domain-names/newgtld/delivery-domain-registration/... Answer me that, please. Is that what the sunrise period (assuming it was registered in sunrise, as it appears to be) was designed for, so that 1-800-Flowers.com could apparently "beat" other competition for the Flowers.delivery domain? Oh, and of course, the TMCH is kept secret, and there's no indicator (like there was in .info/biz) in the WHOIS for sunrises that (a) a domain was registered in sunrise, and (b) which trademark was used to justify the sunrise registration. Beautiful ICANN transparency there (not!) 2. Volker's email at: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2017-August/002333.html simply proposes new "benefits" to registry operators/registrars, i.e. GA can be sooner, a timing benefit. It doesn't address the costs/benefits equation for trademark holders and other prospective registrants who seek to register the same strings. Furthermore, it's potentially open to front-running and abuse, given attempted registrations could then be passed on to TMCH users as "someone is planning to register X". This could be used to abuse TMCH users (notices can not reflect a real registration attempt), and/or could be used to create a new "right of refusal" for trademark holders, a right that doesn't exist in law (ICANN isn't supposed to be creating new legal rights). 3. Paul T.'s email at: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2017-August/002334.html It depends on what Paul T. is proposing, whether it's only reflecting a subset of trademark holders most at risk for abuse that could use a sunrise (which is similar to what I talked about in April when we were horsetrading, albeit I'd auction off the limited number of slots, and also make sure that it wasn't stuffed with terms that are widely used by others; so "Apple" = NO, "Paypal" = YES) In some ways, this would echo Melbourne IT's call for "High At-Risk Marks" (HARM) to be the only ones eligible for sunrise, see that proposal at: http://domainincite.com/10983-melbourne-it-scales-back-harm-proposal I'll admit I haven't read it in detail, but the summary at: https://icannwiki.org/Trademark_Clearinghouse said "Also blocked would be dictionary words from any of the UN’s six official languages." which is an important requirement that I'd need to see accepted. 4. John W. said: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2017-August/002335.html that Paul T.'s proposal would be "completely unfair to small businesses, non-profits and individual brand-owners." Where is John's outrage at a sunrise period that is systematically *unfair* to legitimate prospective registrants who are *not* trademark holders? John (and others) appear to be quite vocal about "unfairness", as long as its to card-carrying members of the trademark club. Unfairness to others? Not a problem! 5. Sunrises are discrimination. Let's speak plainly here. The use of sunrise periods (a right that doesn't exist in law) is discrimination. They single out a group for disparate/special treatment. ICANN's contracts with registry operators and registrars overwhelmingly contain terms that forbid disparate treatment of registries and registrars. Yet, when it comes to disparate treatment of registrants, that discrimination is not only tolerated, but *prescribed* into policy! Registrants deserve to be treated the same as any other registrants, yet, because of lobbying by insiders (the IPC), and because there's no effective non-trademark registrants constituency within ICANN, ordinary registrants (non-trademark owners) are routinely abused and discriminated against. Now, these special privileges aren't there to support some historically "oppressed" groups, such as women, aboriginal groups, LGBT groups, various ethnic minorities, etc. Instead, they're put in place to give special rights (beyond those in law) to some of the largest and richest companies on the planet, those who already have a body of law in place to provide curative rights. They don't *need* the playing field tilted in their favour, yet they're happy to "jump the queue" when given the opportunity to do so, further advantaging them and imposing costs upon others. Jeremy's proposal isn't saying "let's now give special privileges to actually oppressed groups", but is saying "let's eliminate sunrise so that there is *equal* access for all." The same equal access and treatment that registrars and registries have obtained. [NB: I could actually see someone proposing special sunrise privileges for some actually oppressed groups --- I'm sure the IP constituency would be the first to howl, if they were then 2nd in line, instead of 1st in line] We know that discrimination has costs. e.g. even attempts to help historically oppressed groups impose costs on others, witness the lawsuit by Asian Americans against Harvard University http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-uncomfortable-truth-about-affirm... whereby (they argue) they've suffered due to policies that lowered the bar for other groups (and thus raised the standard for Asians). Of course, this discrimination at ICANN isn't about correcting injustices against legally recognized oppressed groups -- it's just about money! (commercial interests!) So, how is it that registries and registrars demand equal treatment in their own contracts, yet when it comes to treatment of registrants, disparate treatment through ICANN policy is acceptable, tolerated, and *instituted* through policy?!! 6. Marc M.'s email at: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2017-August/002336.html once again essentially repeats the mantra "a trademark is a trademark is a trademark", that it's all or nothing. If that's the case, it should be "nothing", rather than "all". Once again, Marc is unable or unwilling to single out certain classes of trademark holders for separate treatment, in order to get to a compromise. But, going back to the point above, when it comes to equal treatment of prospective registrants, it's somehow fine to discriminate, as long as that discrimination puts trademark holders at the front of the line. 7. Cyntia's email at: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2017-August/002337.html tries to analyze the stats, but misses my point that even for those with below average registrations, the sunrises would have been even lower than the expected amount, given their size. And the whole point of sunrises was "trademark holders *need* this, to fight the scourge of cybersquatting". If you're not using something (statistically), i.e. using it far less than expected, that demonstrates you don't actually need it. The assumptions that premised the institution of the policy proved false. Thus, it's time to reverse the policy, because of the false premise (since the balance of the benefits and costs equation is now also reversed through observation, compared to expectations that had led to the policy being adopted). No one is arguing that the sunrises aren't providing a *benefit* to those who use it. i.e. the person who jumped to the front of the line obviously received a benefit! What we're saying is that the overall benefits (privatized to those using the sunrise periods) are outweighed by the costs imposed upon everybody else. [continuing with the 'jumping the queue' metaphor, the folks who didn't get a seat at all, or had to settle for a worse seat] 8. Why aren't there sunrises at the top-level?!!?? Now, here's where things get fun. ICANN explicitly rejected sunrise privileges to trademark holders at the top level! In many ways, ICANN (through IANA) is the "registry operator" of the root, setting its policies, yet no special privileges were granted to trademark holders to "jump to the front of the line" if there was contention at the top level. Why? Certainly all the same arguments that the IPC puts forth when discussing RPMs like sunrise also apply at the top level itself. All the same arguments that registry operators put forth to reject sunrises at the top level also apply to the 2nd level. Two different solutions were arrived at for top vs. 2nd level, though! (reflecting the power struggle between the various insiders at ICANN, and inconsistent analysis to similar problems; essentially, registrants are routinely thrown under the bus) There are those here who've lately chimed in with their suggestions that the sunrise at the 2nd level can be "tweaked", to fix the gaming issue. Pretend that that was true --- that would necessarily mean that such a *fix* could also be applied to sunrises at the TOP LEVEL! i.e. it's 100% hypocritical to suggest that the TLDs, and 2nd level domains should be treated differently with respect to sunrise periods for trademark holders. If there was contention at the top-level, why is the answer to the question "Should the trademark holder win?" be different than the same question applied at the 2nd level? In essence, the top-level currently has the identical "landrush" at their level that would exist if our working group eliminates sunrise period at the second-level. Trademark holders (brand owners) have no special rights to a TLD, yet are able to outbid others for it if they so desire. And they of course have recourse for abuses. Of course, the top-level has their own gaming issue, with "community" applications! Those "community applications" are akin to the gaming going on here at the 2nd level in sunrises. These demonstrate the "costs" of trying to discriminate in favour of certain prospective registrants, at either the top or 2nd level, and argue for equal treatment and a level playing field. So, here's a direct question to trademark holders and to registry operator reps (and anyone else is free to chime in). If Jeremy's proposal (to eliminate the sunrise) is rejected, that means we're as a group, saying that sunrises have been successful. Why not "share that success" (which would involve the elimination of gaming) at the top level too? Perhaps Jeremy would even consider it a "friendly" amendment to his proposal that if his proposal is rejected, that any "solution" that we arrive at for sunrises be applied to all future rounds of new TLDs at the top level? Given registry operators a "taste" of that "solution" that arrives from this hallowed working group… I hope that serves to bring in to clear focus the issues that are at stake regarding treatment trademark owners differently than other legitimate registrants/applicants… Have a nice weekend! Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
Sorry, George. I’ll have to respectfully disagree w/ your response to my question. I do appreciate your admission that Sunrise is beneficial to TM owners. The only question remaining is to determine whether the benefits outweigh the costs. I believe they do. We’re talking about nTLDs opened by those seeking to profit from a new business. The cost of Sunrise is a business expense paid in the hope of making a large financial return. TM owners, who do not profit from the new Registries, should not have to bear the primary cost to protect their brand in the Registries profit scheme. Their - substantial - costs come from having to monitor & remediate infringing registrations. Sunrise periods are not overly-burdensome to Registries & place most costs where they should be - on the new business venture. Cyntia King CEO & Founder <mailto:cking@modernip.com> cking@modernip.com -----Original Message----- From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of George Kirikos Sent: Friday, August 11, 2017 3:35 PM To: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] 99%+ reduction in sunrise utilization rate per TLD supports EFF call for elimination of sunrise To reduce the number of emails, I'll respond to several recent emails in a single (long) email, with a table of contents (!) to help preview what's coming. Table of Contents ----------------- 1. Response to Georges N. 2. Response to Volker 3. Response to Paul T. 4. Response to John M. 5. Sunrise periods are discrimination 6. Response to Marc M. 7. Response to Cyntia 8. Why aren't there sunrises at the top level? 1. Georges N. wrote: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2017-August/002332.html> http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2017-August/002332.html and attempted to argue that if sunrise were eliminated, there'd be "a large spike of abuse". This completely ignores the fact that the trademark holder has the option to simply pursue the domain name in the landrush instead. In other words, giving up the sunrise doesn't mean that the former users of sunrise can't obtain the domain name --- they can, under a level playing field of landrush. I outlined the exact scenarios that would exist at <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2017-August/002286.html> http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2017-August/002286.html for a system without sunrise. Those are not unreasonable to trademark holders (see discussion later), especially if complemented with even more stringent requirements for landrush users (e.g. loser pays, or the other stuff discussed in April, etc.) Gucci.shoes could be registered in landrush instead. All the claimed "costs" of pursuing infringements, etc. don't materialize, because Gucci could certainly be victorious if there was any contention during the landrush period with a competing registrant for Gucci.shoes. Georges N. claims "they are not abusing the sunrise system". Many would beg to differ, when trademark holders are jumping the queue to get first dibs on dictionary words, etc. that have many competing uses. They're treating sunrises as an entitlement, but it's not a right that exists in law. ICANN repeatedly says that they only reflect existing legal rights, but instead they create *new* rights that do not exist in law. Here's an example that might be interesting. How was Flowers.delivery created on February 3, 2015? <https://whois.domaintools.com/flowers.delivery> https://whois.domaintools.com/flowers.delivery by 1-800-Flowers.com? This was a domain name discussed on one of the domain industry blogs: <https://www.thedomains.com/2015/09/05/google-registers-alphabet-sex-in-sunri...> https://www.thedomains.com/2015/09/05/google-registers-alphabet-sex-in-sunri... The same creation date as Yahoo.delivery: <https://whois.domaintools.com/yahoo.delivery> https://whois.domaintools.com/yahoo.delivery (presumably a sunrise?) and according to Instra, Donuts didn't launch Landrush until February 4, 2015: <https://www.instra.com/en/domain-names/newgtld/delivery-domain-registration/...> https://www.instra.com/en/domain-names/newgtld/delivery-domain-registration/... Answer me that, please. Is that what the sunrise period (assuming it was registered in sunrise, as it appears to be) was designed for, so that 1-800-Flowers.com could apparently "beat" other competition for the Flowers.delivery domain? Oh, and of course, the TMCH is kept secret, and there's no indicator (like there was in .info/biz) in the WHOIS for sunrises that (a) a domain was registered in sunrise, and (b) which trademark was used to justify the sunrise registration. Beautiful ICANN transparency there (not!) 2. Volker's email at: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2017-August/002333.html> http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2017-August/002333.html simply proposes new "benefits" to registry operators/registrars, i.e. GA can be sooner, a timing benefit. It doesn't address the costs/benefits equation for trademark holders and other prospective registrants who seek to register the same strings. Furthermore, it's potentially open to front-running and abuse, given attempted registrations could then be passed on to TMCH users as "someone is planning to register X". This could be used to abuse TMCH users (notices can not reflect a real registration attempt), and/or could be used to create a new "right of refusal" for trademark holders, a right that doesn't exist in law (ICANN isn't supposed to be creating new legal rights). 3. Paul T.'s email at: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2017-August/002334.html> http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2017-August/002334.html It depends on what Paul T. is proposing, whether it's only reflecting a subset of trademark holders most at risk for abuse that could use a sunrise (which is similar to what I talked about in April when we were horsetrading, albeit I'd auction off the limited number of slots, and also make sure that it wasn't stuffed with terms that are widely used by others; so "Apple" = NO, "Paypal" = YES) In some ways, this would echo Melbourne IT's call for "High At-Risk Marks" (HARM) to be the only ones eligible for sunrise, see that proposal at: <http://domainincite.com/10983-melbourne-it-scales-back-harm-proposal> http://domainincite.com/10983-melbourne-it-scales-back-harm-proposal I'll admit I haven't read it in detail, but the summary at: <https://icannwiki.org/Trademark_Clearinghouse> https://icannwiki.org/Trademark_Clearinghouse said "Also blocked would be dictionary words from any of the UN’s six official languages." which is an important requirement that I'd need to see accepted. 4. John W. said: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2017-August/002335.html> http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2017-August/002335.html that Paul T.'s proposal would be "completely unfair to small businesses, non-profits and individual brand-owners." Where is John's outrage at a sunrise period that is systematically *unfair* to legitimate prospective registrants who are *not* trademark holders? John (and others) appear to be quite vocal about "unfairness", as long as its to card-carrying members of the trademark club. Unfairness to others? Not a problem! 5. Sunrises are discrimination. Let's speak plainly here. The use of sunrise periods (a right that doesn't exist in law) is discrimination. They single out a group for disparate/special treatment. ICANN's contracts with registry operators and registrars overwhelmingly contain terms that forbid disparate treatment of registries and registrars. Yet, when it comes to disparate treatment of registrants, that discrimination is not only tolerated, but *prescribed* into policy! Registrants deserve to be treated the same as any other registrants, yet, because of lobbying by insiders (the IPC), and because there's no effective non-trademark registrants constituency within ICANN, ordinary registrants (non-trademark owners) are routinely abused and discriminated against. Now, these special privileges aren't there to support some historically "oppressed" groups, such as women, aboriginal groups, LGBT groups, various ethnic minorities, etc. Instead, they're put in place to give special rights (beyond those in law) to some of the largest and richest companies on the planet, those who already have a body of law in place to provide curative rights. They don't *need* the playing field tilted in their favour, yet they're happy to "jump the queue" when given the opportunity to do so, further advantaging them and imposing costs upon others. Jeremy's proposal isn't saying "let's now give special privileges to actually oppressed groups", but is saying "let's eliminate sunrise so that there is *equal* access for all." The same equal access and treatment that registrars and registries have obtained. [NB: I could actually see someone proposing special sunrise privileges for some actually oppressed groups --- I'm sure the IP constituency would be the first to howl, if they were then 2nd in line, instead of 1st in line] We know that discrimination has costs. e.g. even attempts to help historically oppressed groups impose costs on others, witness the lawsuit by Asian Americans against Harvard University <http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-uncomfortable-truth-about-affirm...> http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-uncomfortable-truth-about-affirm... whereby (they argue) they've suffered due to policies that lowered the bar for other groups (and thus raised the standard for Asians). Of course, this discrimination at ICANN isn't about correcting injustices against legally recognized oppressed groups -- it's just about money! (commercial interests!) So, how is it that registries and registrars demand equal treatment in their own contracts, yet when it comes to treatment of registrants, disparate treatment through ICANN policy is acceptable, tolerated, and *instituted* through policy?!! 6. Marc M.'s email at: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2017-August/002336.html> http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2017-August/002336.html once again essentially repeats the mantra "a trademark is a trademark is a trademark", that it's all or nothing. If that's the case, it should be "nothing", rather than "all". Once again, Marc is unable or unwilling to single out certain classes of trademark holders for separate treatment, in order to get to a compromise. But, going back to the point above, when it comes to equal treatment of prospective registrants, it's somehow fine to discriminate, as long as that discrimination puts trademark holders at the front of the line. 7. Cyntia's email at: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2017-August/002337.html> http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2017-August/002337.html tries to analyze the stats, but misses my point that even for those with below average registrations, the sunrises would have been even lower than the expected amount, given their size. And the whole point of sunrises was "trademark holders *need* this, to fight the scourge of cybersquatting". If you're not using something (statistically), i.e. using it far less than expected, that demonstrates you don't actually need it. The assumptions that premised the institution of the policy proved false. Thus, it's time to reverse the policy, because of the false premise (since the balance of the benefits and costs equation is now also reversed through observation, compared to expectations that had led to the policy being adopted). No one is arguing that the sunrises aren't providing a *benefit* to those who use it. i.e. the person who jumped to the front of the line obviously received a benefit! What we're saying is that the overall benefits (privatized to those using the sunrise periods) are outweighed by the costs imposed upon everybody else. [continuing with the 'jumping the queue' metaphor, the folks who didn't get a seat at all, or had to settle for a worse seat] 8. Why aren't there sunrises at the top-level?!!?? Now, here's where things get fun. ICANN explicitly rejected sunrise privileges to trademark holders at the top level! In many ways, ICANN (through IANA) is the "registry operator" of the root, setting its policies, yet no special privileges were granted to trademark holders to "jump to the front of the line" if there was contention at the top level. Why? Certainly all the same arguments that the IPC puts forth when discussing RPMs like sunrise also apply at the top level itself. All the same arguments that registry operators put forth to reject sunrises at the top level also apply to the 2nd level. Two different solutions were arrived at for top vs. 2nd level, though! (reflecting the power struggle between the various insiders at ICANN, and inconsistent analysis to similar problems; essentially, registrants are routinely thrown under the bus) There are those here who've lately chimed in with their suggestions that the sunrise at the 2nd level can be "tweaked", to fix the gaming issue. Pretend that that was true --- that would necessarily mean that such a *fix* could also be applied to sunrises at the TOP LEVEL! i.e. it's 100% hypocritical to suggest that the TLDs, and 2nd level domains should be treated differently with respect to sunrise periods for trademark holders. If there was contention at the top-level, why is the answer to the question "Should the trademark holder win?" be different than the same question applied at the 2nd level? In essence, the top-level currently has the identical "landrush" at their level that would exist if our working group eliminates sunrise period at the second-level. Trademark holders (brand owners) have no special rights to a TLD, yet are able to outbid others for it if they so desire. And they of course have recourse for abuses. Of course, the top-level has their own gaming issue, with "community" applications! Those "community applications" are akin to the gaming going on here at the 2nd level in sunrises. These demonstrate the "costs" of trying to discriminate in favour of certain prospective registrants, at either the top or 2nd level, and argue for equal treatment and a level playing field. So, here's a direct question to trademark holders and to registry operator reps (and anyone else is free to chime in). If Jeremy's proposal (to eliminate the sunrise) is rejected, that means we're as a group, saying that sunrises have been successful. Why not "share that success" (which would involve the elimination of gaming) at the top level too? Perhaps Jeremy would even consider it a "friendly" amendment to his proposal that if his proposal is rejected, that any "solution" that we arrive at for sunrises be applied to all future rounds of new TLDs at the top level? Given registry operators a "taste" of that "solution" that arrives from this hallowed working group… I hope that serves to bring in to clear focus the issues that are at stake regarding treatment trademark owners differently than other legitimate registrants/applicants… Have a nice weekend! Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 <http://www.leap.com/> http://www.leap.com/ _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
Hi Cyntia, It's nice to see greater participation on the mailing list from knowledgeable members like yourself! On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 4:50 PM, Cyntia King <cking@modernip.com> wrote:
I do appreciate your admission that Sunrise is beneficial to TM owners.
No one was denying that. If someone pushed a pregnant woman out of her seat on a bus, and took the seat for themselves, that person would also benefit from that obnoxious behaviour. That's the nature of the "benefit" to the TM owners, pushing aside someone else because they believe they have a "better right" to that seat. It's an action with a private benefit that imposes a cost upon others.
We’re talking about nTLDs opened by those seeking to profit from a new business. The cost of Sunrise is a business expense paid in the hope of making a large financial return.
I think you're not fully appreciating where the "costs" of a sunrise are being borne. It's not just registry operators (and they might even be beneficiaries --- some claim they'd offer them, even if they weren't mandated, presumably setting a price so that they'd profit from sunrises more than if they relied upon landrushes alone). The costs are also borne by the folks who are being relegated to "the back of the bus", being discriminated against and having a lower priority for their registration attempts. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
Hi George, TM owners do get a place at the front of the line - because the’ve paid for it. TM owners have invested time & money to create & register a mark. They did it in anticipation of profits….. Just like nTLD Registry owners. And those people “at the back of the bus” are not being excluded from anything. Any one of them can go to the front of the line if they also spend the time, money & effort to register their own TM. Cyntia King CEO & Founder <mailto:cking@modernip.com> cking@modernip.com -----Original Message----- From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of George Kirikos Sent: Friday, August 11, 2017 4:25 PM To: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] 99%+ reduction in sunrise utilization rate per TLD supports EFF call for elimination of sunrise Hi Cyntia, It's nice to see greater participation on the mailing list from knowledgeable members like yourself! On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 4:50 PM, Cyntia King < <mailto:cking@modernip.com> cking@modernip.com> wrote:
I do appreciate your admission that Sunrise is beneficial to TM owners.
No one was denying that. If someone pushed a pregnant woman out of her seat on a bus, and took the seat for themselves, that person would also benefit from that obnoxious behaviour. That's the nature of the "benefit" to the TM owners, pushing aside someone else because they believe they have a "better right" to that seat. It's an action with a private benefit that imposes a cost upon others.
We’re talking about nTLDs opened by those seeking to profit from a new business. The cost of Sunrise is a business expense paid in the hope of making a large financial return.
I think you're not fully appreciating where the "costs" of a sunrise are being borne. It's not just registry operators (and they might even be beneficiaries --- some claim they'd offer them, even if they weren't mandated, presumably setting a price so that they'd profit from sunrises more than if they relied upon landrushes alone). The costs are also borne by the folks who are being relegated to "the back of the bus", being discriminated against and having a lower priority for their registration attempts. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 <http://www.leap.com/> http://www.leap.com/ _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
Hi Cyntia On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 5:48 PM, Cyntia King <cking@modernip.com> wrote:
TM owners do get a place at the front of the line - because the’ve paid for it.
There's no legal right to be "at the front of the line" because they've "paid for it". Others would equally be willing to simply pay, if the contention is only decided by money (i.e. auctions), as long as everyone is on the level playing field.
And those people “at the back of the bus” are not being excluded from anything. Any one of them can go to the front of the line if they also spend the time, money & effort to register their own TM.
That's not how problems of "discrimination" is solved. The "solution" isn't to "get a TM, because that's what takes you to the front of the line" -- that's how we got the gamed sunrises for "THE", "HOTEL", "HOTELS", and so on. The solution is to stop discrimination entirely (eliminating the sunrise). It's like suggesting to a non-white person, "you can go to the front of the bus" (in the segregated 1950s America) "by changing the colour of your skin!" The right solution isn't to perpetuate discrimination, but to end it. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
Hi George, I think your language is unnecessarily inflammatory & I’d appreciate it if you’d take it down a notch. You should prolly also stop conflating issues of simple commerce (what we’re doing here) w/ social injustice. Actually, trademarks do represent a legal bar to use of a name & those who obtain TMs do receive benefits not available to those who do not. That bar exists to protect consumers. We cannot ignore that TM owners: * Invest substantial sums in their marks (registration, marketing, defending, maintenance, etc) * Must protect their TMs or risk having them cancelled * Are forced to spend significant sums to stop abuse of their TM names when such abuse occurs It’s just not good policy to force TM owners to corral every horse that gets out of the barn, rather than taking simple steps to keep them from getting out in the first place. Cyntia King CEO & Founder <mailto:cking@modernip.com> cking@modernip.com -----Original Message----- From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of George Kirikos Sent: Friday, August 11, 2017 5:00 PM To: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] 99%+ reduction in sunrise utilization rate per TLD supports EFF call for elimination of sunrise Hi Cyntia On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 5:48 PM, Cyntia King < <mailto:cking@modernip.com> cking@modernip.com> wrote:
TM owners do get a place at the front of the line - because the’ve paid for it.
There's no legal right to be "at the front of the line" because they've "paid for it". Others would equally be willing to simply pay, if the contention is only decided by money (i.e. auctions), as long as everyone is on the level playing field.
And those people “at the back of the bus” are not being excluded from anything. Any one of them can go to the front of the line if they also spend the time, money & effort to register their own TM.
That's not how problems of "discrimination" is solved. The "solution" isn't to "get a TM, because that's what takes you to the front of the line" -- that's how we got the gamed sunrises for "THE", "HOTEL", "HOTELS", and so on. The solution is to stop discrimination entirely (eliminating the sunrise). It's like suggesting to a non-white person, "you can go to the front of the bus" (in the segregated 1950s America) "by changing the colour of your skin!" The right solution isn't to perpetuate discrimination, but to end it. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 <http://www.leap.com/> http://www.leap.com/ _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
+1 Cyntia Colin Thomas Jefferson O’Brien [PartridgePartners_logo_final (002)] 321 North Clark Street, Suite 720 Chicago, Illinois 60654 312-634-9503 http://www.partridge.partners/<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.partridge.partners_&d=CwMGaQ&c=kqD9Q09X0_hF3XfnL01GEfIkP9-W7TXn6puQBrgMIlo&r=9-_oVnIkTFYkZzv8b5PGVZckJXV9d_c5sI_KGA4CFMQ&m=Dun2gPGoNhOgvtpfJFgCNhsEsF1r1qZZAGfEZ63PcqU&s=dcEs8IDDNmTr1H9cTMbFBrHidXnGIT9Xd63iQR0KkHI&e=> From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Cyntia King Sent: Friday, August 11, 2017 6:11 PM To: 'George Kirikos'; 'gnso-rpm-wg' Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] 99%+ reduction in sunrise utilization rate per TLD supports EFF call for elimination of sunrise Hi George, I think your language is unnecessarily inflammatory & I’d appreciate it if you’d take it down a notch. You should prolly also stop conflating issues of simple commerce (what we’re doing here) w/ social injustice. Actually, trademarks do represent a legal bar to use of a name & those who obtain TMs do receive benefits not available to those who do not. That bar exists to protect consumers. We cannot ignore that TM owners: * Invest substantial sums in their marks (registration, marketing, defending, maintenance, etc) * Must protect their TMs or risk having them cancelled * Are forced to spend significant sums to stop abuse of their TM names when such abuse occurs It’s just not good policy to force TM owners to corral every horse that gets out of the barn, rather than taking simple steps to keep them from getting out in the first place. Cyntia King CEO & Founder cking@modernip.com<mailto:cking@modernip.com> [MIP Email Composite Logo] -----Original Message----- From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of George Kirikos Sent: Friday, August 11, 2017 5:00 PM To: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] 99%+ reduction in sunrise utilization rate per TLD supports EFF call for elimination of sunrise Hi Cyntia On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 5:48 PM, Cyntia King <cking@modernip.com<mailto:cking@modernip.com>> wrote:
TM owners do get a place at the front of the line - because the’ve paid for it.
There's no legal right to be "at the front of the line" because they've "paid for it". Others would equally be willing to simply pay, if the contention is only decided by money (i.e. auctions), as long as everyone is on the level playing field.
And those people “at the back of the bus” are not being excluded from anything. Any one of them can go to the front of the line if they also spend the time, money & effort to register their own TM.
That's not how problems of "discrimination" is solved. The "solution" isn't to "get a TM, because that's what takes you to the front of the line" -- that's how we got the gamed sunrises for "THE", "HOTEL", "HOTELS", and so on. The solution is to stop discrimination entirely (eliminating the sunrise). It's like suggesting to a non-white person, "you can go to the front of the bus" (in the segregated 1950s America) "by changing the colour of your skin!" The right solution isn't to perpetuate discrimination, but to end it. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg ______________________________________________________________________ This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service. For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service. For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com ______________________________________________________________________
I support Cyntia’s comments here. From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Cyntia King Sent: Friday, August 11, 2017 4:11 PM To: 'George Kirikos' <icann@leap.com>; 'gnso-rpm-wg' <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] 99%+ reduction in sunrise utilization rate per TLD supports EFF call for elimination of sunrise Hi George, I think your language is unnecessarily inflammatory & I’d appreciate it if you’d take it down a notch. You should prolly also stop conflating issues of simple commerce (what we’re doing here) w/ social injustice. Actually, trademarks do represent a legal bar to use of a name & those who obtain TMs do receive benefits not available to those who do not. That bar exists to protect consumers. We cannot ignore that TM owners: * Invest substantial sums in their marks (registration, marketing, defending, maintenance, etc) * Must protect their TMs or risk having them cancelled * Are forced to spend significant sums to stop abuse of their TM names when such abuse occurs It’s just not good policy to force TM owners to corral every horse that gets out of the barn, rather than taking simple steps to keep them from getting out in the first place. Cyntia King CEO & Founder cking@modernip.com<mailto:cking@modernip.com> [MIP Email Composite Logo] -----Original Message----- From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of George Kirikos Sent: Friday, August 11, 2017 5:00 PM To: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] 99%+ reduction in sunrise utilization rate per TLD supports EFF call for elimination of sunrise Hi Cyntia On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 5:48 PM, Cyntia King <cking@modernip.com<mailto:cking@modernip.com>> wrote:
TM owners do get a place at the front of the line - because the’ve paid for it.
There's no legal right to be "at the front of the line" because they've "paid for it". Others would equally be willing to simply pay, if the contention is only decided by money (i.e. auctions), as long as everyone is on the level playing field.
And those people “at the back of the bus” are not being excluded from anything. Any one of them can go to the front of the line if they also spend the time, money & effort to register their own TM.
That's not how problems of "discrimination" is solved. The "solution" isn't to "get a TM, because that's what takes you to the front of the line" -- that's how we got the gamed sunrises for "THE", "HOTEL", "HOTELS", and so on. The solution is to stop discrimination entirely (eliminating the sunrise). It's like suggesting to a non-white person, "you can go to the front of the bus" (in the segregated 1950s America) "by changing the colour of your skin!" The right solution isn't to perpetuate discrimination, but to end it. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
+1 Cynthia. From: Cyntia King Sent: Friday, August 11, 2017 7:12 PM To: 'George Kirikos'; 'gnso-rpm-wg' Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] 99%+ reduction in sunrise utilization rate per TLD supports EFF call for elimination of sunrise Hi George, I think your language is unnecessarily inflammatory & I'd appreciate it if you'd take it down a notch. You should prolly also stop conflating issues of simple commerce (what we're doing here) w/ social injustice. Actually, trademarks do represent a legal bar to use of a name & those who obtain TMs do receive benefits not available to those who do not. That bar exists to protect consumers. We cannot ignore that TM owners: * Invest substantial sums in their marks (registration, marketing, defending, maintenance, etc) * Must protect their TMs or risk having them cancelled * Are forced to spend significant sums to stop abuse of their TM names when such abuse occurs It's just not good policy to force TM owners to corral every horse that gets out of the barn, rather than taking simple steps to keep them from getting out in the first place. Cyntia King CEO & Founder cking@modernip.com<mailto:cking@modernip.com> [MIP Email Composite Logo] -----Original Message----- From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of George Kirikos Sent: Friday, August 11, 2017 5:00 PM To: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] 99%+ reduction in sunrise utilization rate per TLD supports EFF call for elimination of sunrise Hi Cyntia On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 5:48 PM, Cyntia King <cking@modernip.com<mailto:cking@modernip.com>> wrote:
TM owners do get a place at the front of the line - because the've paid for it.
There's no legal right to be "at the front of the line" because they've "paid for it". Others would equally be willing to simply pay, if the contention is only decided by money (i.e. auctions), as long as everyone is on the level playing field.
And those people "at the back of the bus" are not being excluded from anything. Any one of them can go to the front of the line if they also spend the time, money & effort to register their own TM.
That's not how problems of "discrimination" is solved. The "solution" isn't to "get a TM, because that's what takes you to the front of the line" -- that's how we got the gamed sunrises for "THE", "HOTEL", "HOTELS", and so on. The solution is to stop discrimination entirely (eliminating the sunrise). It's like suggesting to a non-white person, "you can go to the front of the bus" (in the segregated 1950s America) "by changing the colour of your skin!" The right solution isn't to perpetuate discrimination, but to end it. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg ________________________________ Confidentiality Notice: This communication constitutes an electronic communication within the meaning of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 2510, and its disclosure is strictly limited to the recipient intended by the sender of this message. This transmission, and any attachments, may contain confidential attorney-client privileged information and attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. Please contact us immediately by return e-mail or at 404 815 6500, and destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading or saving in any manner. ________________________________ ***DISCLAIMER*** Per Treasury Department Circular 230: Any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein.
Agree with Cyntia as well. In a few posts, trademark owners have gone from being compared to shoving pregnant women out of bus sets to being compared with racists. It feels like Godwin's Law will be satisfied soon. Greg On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 7:17 PM, Nahitchevansky, Georges < ghn@kilpatricktownsend.com> wrote:
+1 Cynthia.
*From: *Cyntia King *Sent: *Friday, August 11, 2017 7:12 PM *To: *'George Kirikos'; 'gnso-rpm-wg' *Subject: *Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] 99%+ reduction in sunrise utilization rate per TLD supports EFF call for elimination of sunrise
Hi George,
I think your language is unnecessarily inflammatory & I’d appreciate it if you’d take it down a notch.
You should prolly also stop conflating issues of simple commerce (what we’re doing here) w/ social injustice.
Actually, trademarks do represent a legal bar to use of a name & those who obtain TMs do receive benefits not available to those who do not. That bar exists to protect consumers.
We cannot ignore that TM owners:
- Invest substantial sums in their marks (registration, marketing, defending, maintenance, etc) - *Must* protect their TMs or risk having them cancelled - Are forced to spend significant sums to stop abuse of their TM names when such abuse occurs
It’s just not good policy to force TM owners to corral every horse that gets out of the barn, rather than taking simple steps to keep them from getting out in the first place.
*Cyntia King*
CEO & Founder
cking@modernip.com
[image: MIP Email Composite Logo]
-----Original Message----- From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of George Kirikos Sent: Friday, August 11, 2017 5:00 PM To: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] 99%+ reduction in sunrise utilization rate per TLD supports EFF call for elimination of sunrise
Hi Cyntia
On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 5:48 PM, Cyntia King <cking@modernip.com> wrote:
TM owners do get a place at the front of the line - because the’ve paid for it.
There's no legal right to be "at the front of the line" because they've "paid for it". Others would equally be willing to simply pay, if the contention is only decided by money (i.e. auctions), as long as everyone is on the level playing field.
And those people “at the back of the bus” are not being excluded from anything. Any one of them can go to the front of the line if they also spend the time, money & effort to register their own TM.
That's not how problems of "discrimination" is solved. The "solution"
isn't to "get a TM, because that's what takes you to the front of the line" -- that's how we got the gamed sunrises for "THE", "HOTEL", "HOTELS", and so on. The solution is to stop discrimination entirely (eliminating the sunrise).
It's like suggesting to a non-white person, "you can go to the front of the bus" (in the segregated 1950s America) "by changing the colour of your skin!" The right solution isn't to perpetuate discrimination, but to end it.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos
416-588-0269 <(416)%20588-0269>
_______________________________________________
gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
------------------------------
Confidentiality Notice: This communication constitutes an electronic communication within the meaning of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 2510, and its disclosure is strictly limited to the recipient intended by the sender of this message. This transmission, and any attachments, may contain confidential attorney-client privileged information and attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. Please contact us immediately by return e-mail or at 404 815 6500 <(404)%20815-6500>, and destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading or saving in any manner.
------------------------------
***DISCLAIMER*** Per Treasury Department Circular 230: Any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein.
_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
+1 Greg Héctor Ariel Manoff Vitale, Manoff & Feilbogen Viamonte 1145 10º Piso C1053ABW Buenos Aires República Argentina Te: (54-11) 4371-6100 Fax: (54-11) 4371-6365 E-mail: <mailto:amanoff@vmf.com.ar> amanoff@vmf.com.ar Web: <http://www.vmf.com.ar/> http://www.vmf.com.ar **************************************************************************************************************************************************** Esta comunicación tiene como destinatario a la persona o empresa a la cual está dirigida y puede contener información confidencial y reservada. Si el lector de este mensaje no es el destinatario o sus empleados o representantes, deberá proceder a reenviar el presente a su remitente. La distribución, diseminación o copiado de este mensaje podría constituir violación a la ley. Gracias. This email and any files transmitted with it are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential, and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication in error, please notify us immediately by telephone and return the original message to us at the above address. Thank you. **************************************************************************************************************************************************** De: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] En nombre de Greg Shatan Enviado el: viernes, 11 de agosto de 2017 20:24 Para: Nahitchevansky, Georges CC: gnso-rpm-wg Asunto: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] 99%+ reduction in sunrise utilization rate per TLD supports EFF call for elimination of sunrise Agree with Cyntia as well. In a few posts, trademark owners have gone from being compared to shoving pregnant women out of bus sets to being compared with racists. It feels like Godwin's Law will be satisfied soon. Greg On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 7:17 PM, Nahitchevansky, Georges <ghn@kilpatricktownsend.com> wrote: +1 Cynthia. From: Cyntia King Sent: Friday, August 11, 2017 7:12 PM To: 'George Kirikos'; 'gnso-rpm-wg' Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] 99%+ reduction in sunrise utilization rate per TLD supports EFF call for elimination of sunrise Hi George, I think your language is unnecessarily inflammatory & I’d appreciate it if you’d take it down a notch. You should prolly also stop conflating issues of simple commerce (what we’re doing here) w/ social injustice. Actually, trademarks do represent a legal bar to use of a name & those who obtain TMs do receive benefits not available to those who do not. That bar exists to protect consumers. We cannot ignore that TM owners: * Invest substantial sums in their marks (registration, marketing, defending, maintenance, etc) * Must protect their TMs or risk having them cancelled * Are forced to spend significant sums to stop abuse of their TM names when such abuse occurs It’s just not good policy to force TM owners to corral every horse that gets out of the barn, rather than taking simple steps to keep them from getting out in the first place. Cyntia King CEO & Founder <mailto:cking@modernip.com> cking@modernip.com MIP Email Composite Logo -----Original Message----- From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of George Kirikos Sent: Friday, August 11, 2017 5:00 PM To: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] 99%+ reduction in sunrise utilization rate per TLD supports EFF call for elimination of sunrise Hi Cyntia On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 5:48 PM, Cyntia King < <mailto:cking@modernip.com> cking@modernip.com> wrote:
TM owners do get a place at the front of the line - because the’ve paid for it.
There's no legal right to be "at the front of the line" because they've "paid for it". Others would equally be willing to simply pay, if the contention is only decided by money (i.e. auctions), as long as everyone is on the level playing field.
And those people “at the back of the bus” are not being excluded from anything. Any one of them can go to the front of the line if they also spend the time, money & effort to register their own TM.
That's not how problems of "discrimination" is solved. The "solution" isn't to "get a TM, because that's what takes you to the front of the line" -- that's how we got the gamed sunrises for "THE", "HOTEL", "HOTELS", and so on. The solution is to stop discrimination entirely (eliminating the sunrise). It's like suggesting to a non-white person, "you can go to the front of the bus" (in the segregated 1950s America) "by changing the colour of your skin!" The right solution isn't to perpetuate discrimination, but to end it. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 <tel:(416)%20588-0269> <http://www.leap.com/> http://www.leap.com/ _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg _____ Confidentiality Notice: This communication constitutes an electronic communication within the meaning of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 2510, and its disclosure is strictly limited to the recipient intended by the sender of this message. This transmission, and any attachments, may contain confidential attorney-client privileged information and attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. Please contact us immediately by return e-mail or at 404 815 6500 <tel:(404)%20815-6500> , and destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading or saving in any manner. _____ ***DISCLAIMER*** Per Treasury Department Circular 230: Any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein. _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
Hi folks, Combining multiple responses into a single (long) email, as before: Table of Contents ----------------- 1. Partial Response to Cyntia (second part first) 2. Defending vigorous free expression (response to Cyntia and Greg) 3. Response to Georges N. 1. Cyntia wrote: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2017-August/002350.html Ignoring the first half of that email for now, and addressing the second half, your statements are incorrect for the following reasons: a) "trademarks do represent a legal bar to use of a name" is obviously false. They do not bar non-infringing use. You appear to fail to understand the limits of what trademarks represent. (if you do understand those limits, you wouldn't have made that overreaching statement) Once you actually do understand those limits, one can develop a more nuanced position that properly gives weight to all sides of these issues. In essence, it's the failure to understand the limits of trademarks that is causing some of these bad policy choices. The first step towards finding consensus is for those on your side to acknowledge that trademark owners have limited rights. Can you acknowledge that, and form a consensus as to the actual boundaries of those limits in law? Or will you cling to the notion that there are no limits? b) "those who obtain TMs do receive benefits not available to those who do not" There are two aspects and/or interpretations of that: (i) perhaps you intended to refer to the *legal* benefits. As I noted in point 1.(a) above, there are limits to those. The benefits are curative in nature, and not preemptive. Someone could open a refreshment stand, today, and sell horse urine with the bottle label "Coca Cola". The famous brand owner might stop that potentially*** infringing trademark usage through a lawsuit. They can't *preemptively*, in law, prevent someone from exercising their free expression rights, for example, to compare the taste of those two liquids (perhaps they might do so on CocaCola.horse, an unregistered domain; I drink neither of those two liquids, so have no opinion on the matter). [*** I say potentially infringing, because if it was an artist selling those bottles as a form of art, with full knowledge to the buyers of said art, there could be an interesting constitutional question] (ii) perhaps you're instead referencing ICANN-granted "benefits", instead. That then becomes a circular argument, treating ICANN-granted "benefits" as the justification for "ICANN-granted benefits". That's treating those benefits as an *entitlement*. c) "Must protect their TMs or risk having them cancelled" This is an overused argument. How many trademarks have ever experienced "Genericide"? https://www.inta.org/INTABulletin/Pages/PracticalTipsonAvoidingGenericide.as... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generic_trademark Of that set, which ones were cancelled because of a failure to register a domain name (that was then subsequently registered by someone else), and of that subset, which ones were cancelled because of *infringing use* (cybersquatting), as opposed to non-infringing use? Show us some actual stats. I believe that number (i.e. any genericide case that even intersected with domain names) to be very low, and might even be zero. Without actual examples which intersect the domain name space, then this is more fiction than reality. Furthermore, that risk (that genericide would occur if one failed to stop every infringing use) is exceedingly small if one is a victim of de minimis cybersquatting. One can use sites like ZFBot or DomainTools or other domain scanning tools to find large numbers of *actually registered* domains that infringe on "Google" or other famous brands. There's no ongoing onus on them that requires that they eliminate every single infringing use. Indeed, Google has repeatedly beaten back attempts to genericide its brand, even in cases that *involve* domain names, see: http://www.nasdaq.com/article/court-says-google-is-not-generic-20170517-0021... http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2017/05/16/15-15809.pdf Furthermore, your arguments, if true (which they're not), extended to their logical conclusion imply that there should be sunrise rules at the top level. Please explain why everything that you said doesn't also apply at the top level, but instead only applies at the 2nd level. Why isn't the registered trademark owner of "HOTEL" or "HOTELS" impacted by those TLDs, in your eyes? Why weren't they given priority access, but instead we got a landrush system for new gTLDs, with no sunrise. The risks are comparable, yet an entirely *different* solution was arrived at. That's not the only example. Every day tens of thousands of domain names expire, and become newly available for registration. Those expired domains are highly contested, e.g. at venues like NameJet, Snapnames, and others. It's a daily landrush. Why is there no "sunrise" period incorporated into the expiring domain name policies of ICANN, to give trademark owners first dibs on that stream of domain names, ahead of companies like HugeDomains, or any other prospective registrant? Why the difference? If trademark owners are entitled to sunrises in all cases (which they clearly do not, e.g. at the top level), then isn't this an ICANN policy failure that needs to be corrected? Since this is the RPM working group for *all* TLDs, shouldn't that be part of our charter, to create sunrise benefits for all TLDs (including the top level itself!), but especially for .com? If yes (and I can't see why you would argue otherwise, given your stated position), explain why. If not, why the disparate treatment of those situations? Once you start to buy into the false belief of trademark owners having an entitlement, where does that end? Why aren't they entitled to *discounts* on dot-com registrations, compared to other registrants, because they're so "special", for example? Doesn't the public interest *demand* and *require* they get a discount, by your reasoning, so they can buy those "defensive" registrations and protect consumers? My position isn't for special treatment for non-trademark owners -- it's for a level playing field, simple equality, just like that which exists at the top-level, and which registrars also enjoy. 2. Defending vigorous free expression (response to Cyntia and Greg) Cyntia and Greg (ignoring the peanut gallery of +1 replies, for the moment) wrote: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2017-August/002350.html http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2017-August/002354.html This is a policy forum, and political speech (trying to change policy outcomes) is the most highly protected form of expression. I shouldn't have to say that or educate people on this topic, it saddens me that I do, but it bears repeating since some are too quick to censor or constrain speech that they disagree with, or that comes from their opponents. Cyntia did not identify what exactly she considered "inflammatory" that she wanted taken "down a notch", but that's like asking someone who is trying to make a point to "make your point with less impact". If one is trying to create a change, one *does*, by definition, want to use language that packs a whallop, that makes an impact. That's called effective communication. I respectfully decline to be less effective in painting the picture of the high stakes involved, or constrain my choice of metaphors so that they paint a less impactful image of the concepts I'm trying to describe. Greg did mention two metaphors, so let me refer to them and their specific context from my emails: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2017-August/002346.html I attempted to rebut the concept that anything "beneficial" to one party is "good overall". If this was a dry scholarly article in an academic journal, I might have written: "Party A took an action that increased their utility by X, but that impacted Party B (or the rest of society) through a decrease of Y. X is less than Y." (of course, I'd have used the less than sign, <, instead of typing out "is less than", but I didn't want to lose some of those with limited math skills) Now, contrast that with what I actually wrote. Which one had more impact, style, and painted a clear picture in one's head? I think the answer is obvious. If one wants to be an effective communicator, one rule is to not be boring. If I replaced my metaphor with the language above, I'd be boring. Instead, it created a relatable image that folks could use to grasp the concept. The concept was that someone could do something good for themselves (get a seat on a bus), but at the expense of others that has a greater cost (pushing a pregnant woman out of her seat). Easily understood. 'Are you not entertained?' https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbBiXPVKuTA 'Boring' does not break through the clutter of modern communications, and doesn't compete effectively in the marketplace of ideas or attention. Maybe you prefer I use a different metaphor. Should I have used one of the following? Alternative Metaphor A: "The prancing unicorn took a shortcut through the farmer's field, on the way to the lake. By doing so, though, some of the farmer's crops were damaged." Alternative Metaphor B: "The princess asked Rumpelstiltskin to conjure her some toast. Since all magic comes with a price, when he did so, the bakery burned down." These illustrated the exact same concept. Were they as effective and impactful, or memorable? I don't think so. You just read them and have already forgotten them (look up again!), and will have forgotten them tomorrow, despite just having read them twice! Some metaphors are more powerful than others. The other metaphor was used to illustrate the concept of Discrimination. Discrimination is a powerful, impactful word, that is easily relatable and understood. An alternative option would be to use the concept of "favouritism". Favouritism is defined as: http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/favouritism "unfair support shown to one person or group, especially by someone in authority:" Which word is more impactful, discrimination, or favouritism? We all know the answer, because I made the right choice, the one that advances my position, the one that paints the most vivid description to illustrate the high stakes. Some might tolerate "favouritism", but most won't tolerate "discrimination". Favouritism is the word one might use to try to disguise or weaken or dilute discriminatory behaviour, like sunrise periods at ICANN. Let's take a step back. What is a metaphor? Wikipedia is a starting point and has a nice summary: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphor "A metaphor is a figure of speech that refers, for rhetorical effect, to one thing by mentioning another thing. It may provide clarity or identify hidden similarities between two ideas." That's a very nice description. *Hidden similarities*. This is not saying that two things are the *same*. It's saying that these things are two different things, but they share some aspect in common. So, yes, sunrise periods where a trademark holder unjustly jumps in line ahead of others, causing others damages, shares a similarity to a person knocking a pregnant woman out of her chair. And it also shares aspects or similarities with other discriminatory behaviour, such as racism, sexism, and all the other vile forms of discrimination that exist. And unlike cases where corrective measures are used to protect those oppressed victims of discrimination, trademark holders are *not* some oppressed group. They sunrise periods for new gTLDs are being used by some of the richest companies in the world, who need no special advantages over everyone else. The metaphor is vivid, strong, and illustrates my point. It provides a fresh insight, ones that others might not have considered before. That's what changes minds and positions, and change itself is what some people find dangerous. The people that find change dangerous are happy with the status quo. They are content to "play for a stalemate" (hey, that's a metaphor! try to keep track of all the metaphors we use in daily language) I'm not playing for a stalemate --- I'm playing to win, and so are others who seek change. You can identify the people that are playing for a stalemate by their behaviour, for example they will try to stifle/censor dissent, call for premature end to debate (just like Greg attempted to do at http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2017-August/002319.html by an appeal to higher authority), among other things. Noah Chomsky said that "The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum…." Isn't that what the more censorious folks are attempting to do, namely disguise an echo chamber by creating the "illusion" of debate, but limit the spectrum of what is acceptable, to ensure that the status quo is not upset? Trying to limit which metaphors are used is part of that. Effective communication means using simple accessible language. You'll note I often will write in a conversational manner. I could instead write in a formal, academic and dry tone (look me up in Google Scholar), but that's not effective in this policy arena (another metaphor!). Another thing is reinforcing key messages. One needs to be authentic. One needs to also be memorable. Have you forgotten my metaphors, or are they burned (metaphorically!) into your soul? Madison Avenue can tell you metaphors that create an emotional impact help sell -- and we're trying to sell our ideas in this competitive marketplace. It's a fair tool. When folks were arguing/debating about SOPA or Net Neutrality other "technical" matters, the ones who were most successful knew all these things. One wants to keep people on their toes, to not know what's coming next. One also wants to be quotable (and notice who gets quoted, and who doesn't on this list, and whose threads are starved for attention -- not mine!). And you know who does this effectively? He's sitting in the Oval Office! See the article at: http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/shari-graydon/donald-trump-communications_b_115... which analyzed Donald Trump's communication style (yes, I set you up there, by saying non-controversial points you nodded to, and then hitting you with that; how was that for an emotional response?). That was a pre-election analysis, too. One of his most effective metaphors was "Drain The Swamp". Effective, memorable, and he won. Of course, I'm not Donald Trump (I back up my statements with rigorous analysis, can "show the work/math" when called upon, etc). I have a long track record of making an impact within ICANN policymaking, and do my homework. But, one can learn from studying Trump, even if one disagrees with his policies/statements/ideas. As for "inflammatory", what does that really mean? I think some folks want to "tone down" (translation = make less effective) certain speech, because it would neuter their opponents. No thanks, I'll respectfully decline. Trump used the expression "Fire and Fury". That's in every newspaper and on every TV news channel. Highly effective, simple, and inflammatory (literally!). Said by the President of the United States, and acceptable political speech. Pick up any newspaper and the "tone" of what is acceptable is certainly comparable to the metaphors I use. Watch John Oliver on HBO, or other late night talk show hosts, and see what is acceptable. If you want to see boring, go read the latest couple of months of the Business Constituency mailing list: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/bc-gnso/ They have had fewer than 100 posts in all of 2017 so far. They've had less in that time span than the 92 we've had so far this month (13 days) alone: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2017-August/date.html For those who don't have access to it (either directly, or via moles, leaks, whistleblowers, forwarded emails, etc.), one can imagine what the IP constituency or other ICANN private mailing lists might look like. When's the last time they said anything quotable? Contrast that with this one, where there is vigorous debate. Some don't like that, because they feel they might lose in the marketplace of ideas. Take a look at every ICANN period, with its dry technical reports, that elicit few if any responses. That's by design. Contrast that with how other organizations that seek change (EFF, ACLU, etc.) communicate to the world, to encourage debate and get their message out. If you want stability, be boring, very boring. For those who want to change that stability, take risks, be exciting. When I raised the alarm bells in the past regarding tiered pricing, for example, I wasn't boring. There's almost an industry these days of "fake outrage" used to attempt to stifle opposing views. That fake outrage is directed only at opposing views, but not when used to advance their own positions. They'll even attack your "style", just as I was criticized for not "top posting"!! http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2017-July/002171.html one of the sillier disputes on this list to date. Someone very wise told me early on to expect lawyerly "distractions" and other tactics. They were so insightful and right. And they laughed at how they didn't need to intervene, as I was doing a pretty good job of handling those attacks without any help. As Lady Mormont would say, one man from Bear Island is worth ten from the mainland. :-) https://winteriscoming.net/2016/06/11/exploring-house-mormont-of-bear-island... Back to what's "inflammatory". Those expressing fake outrage are like those who suggested they "hated the Red Wedding episode of Game of Thrones, that after the *fifth* time watching it, they had to turn away!" Or, "Can you believe what just happened on the Bachelor, I'm never going to watch it again!" The ratings might suggest otherwise. Of course, you're still with me, even though you pretend you're not reading all the way through…let's go on. You're not bored, yet, waiting to see what I might say next. Hmmmm, I read somewhere that's "effective communication". :-) (as he typed away in his conversational style) Here are some examples of metaphors, that we see every day! e.g. some from http://www.knowgramming.com/war_metaphors.htm "The sky is falling" (referencing an apocalyptic end of the world) "The glass ceiling" (used by Ms. Clinton in the election campaign) "a ceasefire for an argument" (war imagery) "a firestorm of controversy" "he was bombarded with questions" (war imagery) "the president is under fire by the press today" (guns) "to crash and burn on a date" "love is a battlefield" (a famous song) "cigarettes are a ticking time bomb" "that movie really bombed over the weekend at the box office" "it's a witch hunt" (Trump on Russia investigation) "to throw domain name registrants under the bus through ICANN's bad policies" (maybe I'm alone in using that every day; but, you should too; humour is effective, too!) Some violent imagery, but that paints a lucid image in one's mind. Terms like these are normal on TV or newspapers, political cartoons, or everyday usage. But, then you might say "Oh, but George, those on *our* side are not using those kinds of metaphors. Trump is a monster, and anything he does, using vivid metaphors is deplorable." How about former President Obama? As a candidate, it's known that he used the metaphor that "if your opponents bring a knife to a fight, you should bring a gun." http://www.snopes.com/bringing-a-gun-to-a-knife-fight/ That's an extremely violent metaphor. But, it's a common and accepted expression, used everyday. How often do folks say: "You come at the king, you best not miss" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WP-lrftLQaQ from The Wire! During our most recent call, Greg Shatan himself used a vivid metaphor, with a comparison to a "racket": http://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/transcript-rpm-review-09aug17-en.pdf "That clearly hasn't happened. I don't - certainly don't think that it was intended as a way to extract very large, relatively speaking, prices from trademark owners. It kind of turns the sunrise protection - sunrise period into a racket." (page 9) I'm assuming he wasn't referencing the game of tennis, but was describing a protection racket and comparing the registry operators to the Mafia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racket_(crime) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_racket I've used that exact same metaphor myself, as I'm sure many others here have done. Including Esther Dyson: http://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion/2011/08/30/commentary/world-commentary/p... Go to Google and search for "ICANN racket" (without the quotes), and there are many, many matches. Nobody bats an eye when those kinds of expressions/metaphors are tossed around, or can credibly call for them to be censored. But, when a political opponent uses them effectively, there's fake moral outrage from the predictable quarters. Also, as for the peanut gallery of +1 senders, take a note of point #1 at: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2017-May/001949.html (I've made this point before) Folks selectively try to interpret the rules to their own benefit. My cheering section doesn't need to boost my self-esteem with +1s. :-) 3. Response to Georges N. http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2017-August/002355.html That was a funny response. It might as well be from a template/cut and paste for some people, i.e. ignore references to the data/evidence, and just say "I disagree." His only "new" statement (perhaps to justify the email itself), was that the landrush proposal is "unworkable". It's not credible to say that, given that there's: a) no sunrise for trademark owners at the top level; if landrush-only can "work" at the top-level it can work and the 2nd level b) as I pointed out to Susan in this email above, a new point, no sunrise period for expiring domain names either (e.g. expiring dot-com domains). There's a daily landrush for expired domains, and somehow trademark owners manage just fine without any preferential access to those domains. Also, you're the last person I'm trying to convince. You continue to make some of the most extremist statements of anyone on this list, e.g. just this past week: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2017-August/002297.html "all of this in the name of some particular claimed harm that has not been proven to exist in the first place" Really? Don't think that those statements go unnoticed. Maybe those on your side will try to get you to back off, because you might be doing their side a disservice with positions that are not credible. Trump didn't campaign in California, because that wasn't a swing state. Who are the "swing voters" in this PDP, and in the public at large? Certainly not you. I, and like-minded others that support the EFF's proposal to eliminate the sunrise (and broadly speaking, support the rights of domain name registrants to equal access to domain names) are trying to convince others in this PDP and the public at large who are open to evidence-based policymaking, reasoning and debate. By the way, for Cyntia, that message (the one directly above) by Georges used the metaphor of the "healthcare system" in the USA, i.e. repealing it. Was that potentially divisive metaphor unacceptable language that should also be banned? I don't think it is (regardless of one's political leanings), and I think it illustrates my earlier point, that folks are free to use the strong imagery they want to attempt to their points vivid. Ask yourself, was this email finished today, before sending? Or did I have it ready yesterday (Saturday), but chose to hit "send" just now (Sunday), at 2:22 pm, for maximum impact with no other distractions on a lazy Sunday afternoon and into Monday? Timing is another tool for effective communications too. If anyone had any questions and wanted to pick up the phone, I'm always ready to talk to try to achieve a win-win consensus in ICANN policymaking. The best way to destroy your enemy is to turn them into a friend. That's all for now folks. Enjoy the rest of your weekend (I know I will!). Cheers, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ On Sat, Aug 12, 2017 at 5:04 PM, Ariel Manoff <amanoff@vmf.com.ar> wrote:
+1 Greg
*Héctor Ariel Manoff*
*Vitale, Manoff & Feilbogen*Viamonte 1145 10º Piso C1053ABW Buenos Aires República Argentina Te: (54-11) 4371-6100 Fax: (54-11) 4371-6365 E-mail: amanoff@vmf.com.ar Web: http://www.vmf.com.ar
************************************************************ ************************************************************ ****************************
Esta comunicación tiene como destinatario a la persona o empresa a la cual está dirigida y puede contener información confidencial y reservada. Si el lector de este mensaje no es el destinatario o sus empleados o representantes, deberá proceder a reenviar el presente a su remitente. La distribución, diseminación o copiado de este mensaje podría constituir violación a la ley. Gracias.
This email and any files transmitted with it are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential, and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication in error, please notify us immediately by telephone and return the original message to us at the above address. Thank you.
************************************************************ ************************************************************ ****************************
*De:* gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] *En nombre de *Greg Shatan *Enviado el:* viernes, 11 de agosto de 2017 20:24 *Para:* Nahitchevansky, Georges *CC:* gnso-rpm-wg *Asunto:* Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] 99%+ reduction in sunrise utilization rate per TLD supports EFF call for elimination of sunrise
Agree with Cyntia as well.
In a few posts, trademark owners have gone from being compared to shoving pregnant women out of bus sets to being compared with racists.
It feels like Godwin's Law will be satisfied soon.
Greg
On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 7:17 PM, Nahitchevansky, Georges < ghn@kilpatricktownsend.com> wrote:
+1 Cynthia.
*From: *Cyntia King
*Sent: *Friday, August 11, 2017 7:12 PM
*To: *'George Kirikos'; 'gnso-rpm-wg'
*Subject: *Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] 99%+ reduction in sunrise utilization rate per TLD supports EFF call for elimination of sunrise
Hi George,
I think your language is unnecessarily inflammatory & I’d appreciate it if you’d take it down a notch.
You should prolly also stop conflating issues of simple commerce (what we’re doing here) w/ social injustice.
Actually, trademarks do represent a legal bar to use of a name & those who obtain TMs do receive benefits not available to those who do not. That bar exists to protect consumers.
We cannot ignore that TM owners:
- Invest substantial sums in their marks (registration, marketing, defending, maintenance, etc) - *Must* protect their TMs or risk having them cancelled - Are forced to spend significant sums to stop abuse of their TM names when such abuse occurs
It’s just not good policy to force TM owners to corral every horse that gets out of the barn, rather than taking simple steps to keep them from getting out in the first place.
*Cyntia King*
CEO & Founder
cking@modernip.com
[image: MIP Email Composite Logo]
-----Original Message----- From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of George Kirikos Sent: Friday, August 11, 2017 5:00 PM To: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] 99%+ reduction in sunrise utilization rate per TLD supports EFF call for elimination of sunrise
Hi Cyntia
On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 5:48 PM, Cyntia King <cking@modernip.com> wrote:
TM owners do get a place at the front of the line - because the’ve paid for it.
There's no legal right to be "at the front of the line" because they've "paid for it". Others would equally be willing to simply pay, if the contention is only decided by money (i.e. auctions), as long as everyone is on the level playing field.
And those people “at the back of the bus” are not being excluded from anything. Any one of them can go to the front of the line if they also spend the time, money & effort to register their own TM.
That's not how problems of "discrimination" is solved. The "solution"
isn't to "get a TM, because that's what takes you to the front of the line" -- that's how we got the gamed sunrises for "THE", "HOTEL", "HOTELS", and so on. The solution is to stop discrimination entirely (eliminating the sunrise).
It's like suggesting to a non-white person, "you can go to the front of the bus" (in the segregated 1950s America) "by changing the colour of your skin!" The right solution isn't to perpetuate discrimination, but to end it.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos
416-588-0269 <(416)%20588-0269>
_______________________________________________
gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
------------------------------
Confidentiality Notice: This communication constitutes an electronic communication within the meaning of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 2510, and its disclosure is strictly limited to the recipient intended by the sender of this message. This transmission, and any attachments, may contain confidential attorney-client privileged information and attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. Please contact us immediately by return e-mail or at 404 815 6500 <(404)%20815-6500>, and destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading or saving in any manner. ------------------------------
***DISCLAIMER*** Per Treasury Department Circular 230: Any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein.
_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
Hi George, You’re not “educating” me - I fully understand the difference between professional discourse & bombastic rant. You draw a false equivalence between matters of assault/human suffering and domain registrations. This isn’t “wallop” it’s disregard for the relative importance of these events. Let’s keep our arguments professional & not needlessly provocative. I have read your emails & I understand your POV. I have presented my own views & I’m satisfied you understand them. I’m ready to vote. Cyntia King E: cking@modernip O: +1 81-ModernIP C: +1 818.209.6088 From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of George Kirikos Sent: Sunday, August 13, 2017 1:24 PM To: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] 99%+ reduction in sunrise utilization rate per TLD supports EFF call for elimination of sunrise Hi folks, Combining multiple responses into a single (long) email, as before: Table of Contents ----------------- 1. Partial Response to Cyntia (second part first) 2. Defending vigorous free expression (response to Cyntia and Greg) 3. Response to Georges N. 1. Cyntia wrote: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2017-August/002350.html Ignoring the first half of that email for now, and addressing the second half, your statements are incorrect for the following reasons: a) "trademarks do represent a legal bar to use of a name" is obviously false. They do not bar non-infringing use. You appear to fail to understand the limits of what trademarks represent. (if you do understand those limits, you wouldn't have made that overreaching statement) Once you actually do understand those limits, one can develop a more nuanced position that properly gives weight to all sides of these issues. In essence, it's the failure to understand the limits of trademarks that is causing some of these bad policy choices. The first step towards finding consensus is for those on your side to acknowledge that trademark owners have limited rights. Can you acknowledge that, and form a consensus as to the actual boundaries of those limits in law? Or will you cling to the notion that there are no limits? b) "those who obtain TMs do receive benefits not available to those who do not" There are two aspects and/or interpretations of that: (i) perhaps you intended to refer to the *legal* benefits. As I noted in point 1.(a) above, there are limits to those. The benefits are curative in nature, and not preemptive. Someone could open a refreshment stand, today, and sell horse urine with the bottle label "Coca Cola". The famous brand owner might stop that potentially*** infringing trademark usage through a lawsuit. They can't *preemptively*, in law, prevent someone from exercising their free expression rights, for example, to compare the taste of those two liquids (perhaps they might do so on CocaCola.horse, an unregistered domain; I drink neither of those two liquids, so have no opinion on the matter). [*** I say potentially infringing, because if it was an artist selling those bottles as a form of art, with full knowledge to the buyers of said art, there could be an interesting constitutional question] (ii) perhaps you're instead referencing ICANN-granted "benefits", instead. That then becomes a circular argument, treating ICANN-granted "benefits" as the justification for "ICANN-granted benefits". That's treating those benefits as an *entitlement*. c) "Must protect their TMs or risk having them cancelled" This is an overused argument. How many trademarks have ever experienced "Genericide"? https://www.inta.org/INTABulletin/Pages/PracticalTipsonAvoidingGenericide.as... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generic_trademark Of that set, which ones were cancelled because of a failure to register a domain name (that was then subsequently registered by someone else), and of that subset, which ones were cancelled because of *infringing use* (cybersquatting), as opposed to non-infringing use? Show us some actual stats. I believe that number (i.e. any genericide case that even intersected with domain names) to be very low, and might even be zero. Without actual examples which intersect the domain name space, then this is more fiction than reality. Furthermore, that risk (that genericide would occur if one failed to stop every infringing use) is exceedingly small if one is a victim of de minimis cybersquatting. One can use sites like ZFBot or DomainTools or other domain scanning tools to find large numbers of *actually registered* domains that infringe on "Google" or other famous brands. There's no ongoing onus on them that requires that they eliminate every single infringing use. Indeed, Google has repeatedly beaten back attempts to genericide its brand, even in cases that *involve* domain names, see: http://www.nasdaq.com/article/court-says-google-is-not-generic-20170517-0021... http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2017/05/16/15-15809.pdf Furthermore, your arguments, if true (which they're not), extended to their logical conclusion imply that there should be sunrise rules at the top level. Please explain why everything that you said doesn't also apply at the top level, but instead only applies at the 2nd level. Why isn't the registered trademark owner of "HOTEL" or "HOTELS" impacted by those TLDs, in your eyes? Why weren't they given priority access, but instead we got a landrush system for new gTLDs, with no sunrise. The risks are comparable, yet an entirely *different* solution was arrived at. That's not the only example. Every day tens of thousands of domain names expire, and become newly available for registration. Those expired domains are highly contested, e.g. at venues like NameJet, Snapnames, and others. It's a daily landrush. Why is there no "sunrise" period incorporated into the expiring domain name policies of ICANN, to give trademark owners first dibs on that stream of domain names, ahead of companies like HugeDomains, or any other prospective registrant? Why the difference? If trademark owners are entitled to sunrises in all cases (which they clearly do not, e.g. at the top level), then isn't this an ICANN policy failure that needs to be corrected? Since this is the RPM working group for *all* TLDs, shouldn't that be part of our charter, to create sunrise benefits for all TLDs (including the top level itself!), but especially for .com? If yes (and I can't see why you would argue otherwise, given your stated position), explain why. If not, why the disparate treatment of those situations? Once you start to buy into the false belief of trademark owners having an entitlement, where does that end? Why aren't they entitled to *discounts* on dot-com registrations, compared to other registrants, because they're so "special", for example? Doesn't the public interest *demand* and *require* they get a discount, by your reasoning, so they can buy those "defensive" registrations and protect consumers? My position isn't for special treatment for non-trademark owners -- it's for a level playing field, simple equality, just like that which exists at the top-level, and which registrars also enjoy. 2. Defending vigorous free expression (response to Cyntia and Greg) Cyntia and Greg (ignoring the peanut gallery of +1 replies, for the moment) wrote: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2017-August/002350.html http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2017-August/002354.html This is a policy forum, and political speech (trying to change policy outcomes) is the most highly protected form of expression. I shouldn't have to say that or educate people on this topic, it saddens me that I do, but it bears repeating since some are too quick to censor or constrain speech that they disagree with, or that comes from their opponents. Cyntia did not identify what exactly she considered "inflammatory" that she wanted taken "down a notch", but that's like asking someone who is trying to make a point to "make your point with less impact". If one is trying to create a change, one *does*, by definition, want to use language that packs a whallop, that makes an impact. That's called effective communication. I respectfully decline to be less effective in painting the picture of the high stakes involved, or constrain my choice of metaphors so that they paint a less impactful image of the concepts I'm trying to describe. Greg did mention two metaphors, so let me refer to them and their specific context from my emails: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2017-August/002346.html I attempted to rebut the concept that anything "beneficial" to one party is "good overall". If this was a dry scholarly article in an academic journal, I might have written: "Party A took an action that increased their utility by X, but that impacted Party B (or the rest of society) through a decrease of Y. X is less than Y." (of course, I'd have used the less than sign, <, instead of typing out "is less than", but I didn't want to lose some of those with limited math skills) Now, contrast that with what I actually wrote. Which one had more impact, style, and painted a clear picture in one's head? I think the answer is obvious. If one wants to be an effective communicator, one rule is to not be boring. If I replaced my metaphor with the language above, I'd be boring. Instead, it created a relatable image that folks could use to grasp the concept. The concept was that someone could do something good for themselves (get a seat on a bus), but at the expense of others that has a greater cost (pushing a pregnant woman out of her seat). Easily understood. 'Are you not entertained?' https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbBiXPVKuTA 'Boring' does not break through the clutter of modern communications, and doesn't compete effectively in the marketplace of ideas or attention. Maybe you prefer I use a different metaphor. Should I have used one of the following? Alternative Metaphor A: "The prancing unicorn took a shortcut through the farmer's field, on the way to the lake. By doing so, though, some of the farmer's crops were damaged." Alternative Metaphor B: "The princess asked Rumpelstiltskin to conjure her some toast. Since all magic comes with a price, when he did so, the bakery burned down." These illustrated the exact same concept. Were they as effective and impactful, or memorable? I don't think so. You just read them and have already forgotten them (look up again!), and will have forgotten them tomorrow, despite just having read them twice! Some metaphors are more powerful than others. The other metaphor was used to illustrate the concept of Discrimination. Discrimination is a powerful, impactful word, that is easily relatable and understood. An alternative option would be to use the concept of "favouritism". Favouritism is defined as: http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/favouritism "unfair support shown to one person or group, especially by someone in authority:" Which word is more impactful, discrimination, or favouritism? We all know the answer, because I made the right choice, the one that advances my position, the one that paints the most vivid description to illustrate the high stakes. Some might tolerate "favouritism", but most won't tolerate "discrimination". Favouritism is the word one might use to try to disguise or weaken or dilute discriminatory behaviour, like sunrise periods at ICANN. Let's take a step back. What is a metaphor? Wikipedia is a starting point and has a nice summary: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphor "A metaphor is a figure of speech that refers, for rhetorical effect, to one thing by mentioning another thing. It may provide clarity or identify hidden similarities between two ideas." That's a very nice description. *Hidden similarities*. This is not saying that two things are the *same*. It's saying that these things are two different things, but they share some aspect in common. So, yes, sunrise periods where a trademark holder unjustly jumps in line ahead of others, causing others damages, shares a similarity to a person knocking a pregnant woman out of her chair. And it also shares aspects or similarities with other discriminatory behaviour, such as racism, sexism, and all the other vile forms of discrimination that exist. And unlike cases where corrective measures are used to protect those oppressed victims of discrimination, trademark holders are *not* some oppressed group. They sunrise periods for new gTLDs are being used by some of the richest companies in the world, who need no special advantages over everyone else. The metaphor is vivid, strong, and illustrates my point. It provides a fresh insight, ones that others might not have considered before. That's what changes minds and positions, and change itself is what some people find dangerous. The people that find change dangerous are happy with the status quo. They are content to "play for a stalemate" (hey, that's a metaphor! try to keep track of all the metaphors we use in daily language) I'm not playing for a stalemate --- I'm playing to win, and so are others who seek change. You can identify the people that are playing for a stalemate by their behaviour, for example they will try to stifle/censor dissent, call for premature end to debate (just like Greg attempted to do at http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2017-August/002319.html by an appeal to higher authority), among other things. Noah Chomsky said that "The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum…." Isn't that what the more censorious folks are attempting to do, namely disguise an echo chamber by creating the "illusion" of debate, but limit the spectrum of what is acceptable, to ensure that the status quo is not upset? Trying to limit which metaphors are used is part of that. Effective communication means using simple accessible language. You'll note I often will write in a conversational manner. I could instead write in a formal, academic and dry tone (look me up in Google Scholar), but that's not effective in this policy arena (another metaphor!). Another thing is reinforcing key messages. One needs to be authentic. One needs to also be memorable. Have you forgotten my metaphors, or are they burned (metaphorically!) into your soul? Madison Avenue can tell you metaphors that create an emotional impact help sell -- and we're trying to sell our ideas in this competitive marketplace. It's a fair tool. When folks were arguing/debating about SOPA or Net Neutrality other "technical" matters, the ones who were most successful knew all these things. One wants to keep people on their toes, to not know what's coming next. One also wants to be quotable (and notice who gets quoted, and who doesn't on this list, and whose threads are starved for attention -- not mine!). And you know who does this effectively? He's sitting in the Oval Office! See the article at: http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/shari-graydon/donald-trump-communications_b_115... which analyzed Donald Trump's communication style (yes, I set you up there, by saying non-controversial points you nodded to, and then hitting you with that; how was that for an emotional response?). That was a pre-election analysis, too. One of his most effective metaphors was "Drain The Swamp". Effective, memorable, and he won. Of course, I'm not Donald Trump (I back up my statements with rigorous analysis, can "show the work/math" when called upon, etc). I have a long track record of making an impact within ICANN policymaking, and do my homework. But, one can learn from studying Trump, even if one disagrees with his policies/statements/ideas. As for "inflammatory", what does that really mean? I think some folks want to "tone down" (translation = make less effective) certain speech, because it would neuter their opponents. No thanks, I'll respectfully decline. Trump used the expression "Fire and Fury". That's in every newspaper and on every TV news channel. Highly effective, simple, and inflammatory (literally!). Said by the President of the United States, and acceptable political speech. Pick up any newspaper and the "tone" of what is acceptable is certainly comparable to the metaphors I use. Watch John Oliver on HBO, or other late night talk show hosts, and see what is acceptable. If you want to see boring, go read the latest couple of months of the Business Constituency mailing list: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/bc-gnso/ They have had fewer than 100 posts in all of 2017 so far. They've had less in that time span than the 92 we've had so far this month (13 days) alone: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2017-August/date.html For those who don't have access to it (either directly, or via moles, leaks, whistleblowers, forwarded emails, etc.), one can imagine what the IP constituency or other ICANN private mailing lists might look like. When's the last time they said anything quotable? Contrast that with this one, where there is vigorous debate. Some don't like that, because they feel they might lose in the marketplace of ideas. Take a look at every ICANN period, with its dry technical reports, that elicit few if any responses. That's by design. Contrast that with how other organizations that seek change (EFF, ACLU, etc.) communicate to the world, to encourage debate and get their message out. If you want stability, be boring, very boring. For those who want to change that stability, take risks, be exciting. When I raised the alarm bells in the past regarding tiered pricing, for example, I wasn't boring. There's almost an industry these days of "fake outrage" used to attempt to stifle opposing views. That fake outrage is directed only at opposing views, but not when used to advance their own positions. They'll even attack your "style", just as I was criticized for not "top posting"!! http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2017-July/002171.html one of the sillier disputes on this list to date. Someone very wise told me early on to expect lawyerly "distractions" and other tactics. They were so insightful and right. And they laughed at how they didn't need to intervene, as I was doing a pretty good job of handling those attacks without any help. As Lady Mormont would say, one man from Bear Island is worth ten from the mainland. :-) https://winteriscoming.net/2016/06/11/exploring-house-mormont-of-bear-island... Back to what's "inflammatory". Those expressing fake outrage are like those who suggested they "hated the Red Wedding episode of Game of Thrones, that after the *fifth* time watching it, they had to turn away!" Or, "Can you believe what just happened on the Bachelor, I'm never going to watch it again!" The ratings might suggest otherwise. Of course, you're still with me, even though you pretend you're not reading all the way through…let's go on. You're not bored, yet, waiting to see what I might say next. Hmmmm, I read somewhere that's "effective communication". :-) (as he typed away in his conversational style) Here are some examples of metaphors, that we see every day! e.g. some from http://www.knowgramming.com/war_metaphors.htm "The sky is falling" (referencing an apocalyptic end of the world) "The glass ceiling" (used by Ms. Clinton in the election campaign) "a ceasefire for an argument" (war imagery) "a firestorm of controversy" "he was bombarded with questions" (war imagery) "the president is under fire by the press today" (guns) "to crash and burn on a date" "love is a battlefield" (a famous song) "cigarettes are a ticking time bomb" "that movie really bombed over the weekend at the box office" "it's a witch hunt" (Trump on Russia investigation) "to throw domain name registrants under the bus through ICANN's bad policies" (maybe I'm alone in using that every day; but, you should too; humour is effective, too!) Some violent imagery, but that paints a lucid image in one's mind. Terms like these are normal on TV or newspapers, political cartoons, or everyday usage. But, then you might say "Oh, but George, those on *our* side are not using those kinds of metaphors. Trump is a monster, and anything he does, using vivid metaphors is deplorable." How about former President Obama? As a candidate, it's known that he used the metaphor that "if your opponents bring a knife to a fight, you should bring a gun." http://www.snopes.com/bringing-a-gun-to-a-knife-fight/ That's an extremely violent metaphor. But, it's a common and accepted expression, used everyday. How often do folks say: "You come at the king, you best not miss" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WP-lrftLQaQ from The Wire! During our most recent call, Greg Shatan himself used a vivid metaphor, with a comparison to a "racket": http://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/transcript-rpm-review-09aug17-en.pdf "That clearly hasn't happened. I don't - certainly don't think that it was intended as a way to extract very large, relatively speaking, prices from trademark owners. It kind of turns the sunrise protection - sunrise period into a racket." (page 9) I'm assuming he wasn't referencing the game of tennis, but was describing a protection racket and comparing the registry operators to the Mafia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racket_(crime) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_racket I've used that exact same metaphor myself, as I'm sure many others here have done. Including Esther Dyson: http://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion/2011/08/30/commentary/world-commentary/p... Go to Google and search for "ICANN racket" (without the quotes), and there are many, many matches. Nobody bats an eye when those kinds of expressions/metaphors are tossed around, or can credibly call for them to be censored. But, when a political opponent uses them effectively, there's fake moral outrage from the predictable quarters. Also, as for the peanut gallery of +1 senders, take a note of point #1 at: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2017-May/001949.html (I've made this point before) Folks selectively try to interpret the rules to their own benefit. My cheering section doesn't need to boost my self-esteem with +1s. :-) 3. Response to Georges N. http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2017-August/002355.html That was a funny response. It might as well be from a template/cut and paste for some people, i.e. ignore references to the data/evidence, and just say "I disagree." His only "new" statement (perhaps to justify the email itself), was that the landrush proposal is "unworkable". It's not credible to say that, given that there's: a) no sunrise for trademark owners at the top level; if landrush-only can "work" at the top-level it can work and the 2nd level b) as I pointed out to Susan in this email above, a new point, no sunrise period for expiring domain names either (e.g. expiring dot-com domains). There's a daily landrush for expired domains, and somehow trademark owners manage just fine without any preferential access to those domains. Also, you're the last person I'm trying to convince. You continue to make some of the most extremist statements of anyone on this list, e.g. just this past week: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2017-August/002297.html "all of this in the name of some particular claimed harm that has not been proven to exist in the first place" Really? Don't think that those statements go unnoticed. Maybe those on your side will try to get you to back off, because you might be doing their side a disservice with positions that are not credible. Trump didn't campaign in California, because that wasn't a swing state. Who are the "swing voters" in this PDP, and in the public at large? Certainly not you. I, and like-minded others that support the EFF's proposal to eliminate the sunrise (and broadly speaking, support the rights of domain name registrants to equal access to domain names) are trying to convince others in this PDP and the public at large who are open to evidence-based policymaking, reasoning and debate. By the way, for Cyntia, that message (the one directly above) by Georges used the metaphor of the "healthcare system" in the USA, i.e. repealing it. Was that potentially divisive metaphor unacceptable language that should also be banned? I don't think it is (regardless of one's political leanings), and I think it illustrates my earlier point, that folks are free to use the strong imagery they want to attempt to their points vivid. Ask yourself, was this email finished today, before sending? Or did I have it ready yesterday (Saturday), but chose to hit "send" just now (Sunday), at 2:22 pm, for maximum impact with no other distractions on a lazy Sunday afternoon and into Monday? Timing is another tool for effective communications too. If anyone had any questions and wanted to pick up the phone, I'm always ready to talk to try to achieve a win-win consensus in ICANN policymaking. The best way to destroy your enemy is to turn them into a friend. That's all for now folks. Enjoy the rest of your weekend (I know I will!). Cheers, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ On Sat, Aug 12, 2017 at 5:04 PM, Ariel Manoff <amanoff@vmf.com.ar <mailto:amanoff@vmf.com.ar> > wrote: +1 Greg Héctor Ariel Manoff Vitale, Manoff & Feilbogen Viamonte 1145 10º Piso C1053ABW Buenos Aires República Argentina Te: (54-11) 4371-6100 Fax: (54-11) 4371-6365 E-mail: <mailto:amanoff@vmf.com.ar> amanoff@vmf.com.ar Web: <http://www.vmf.com.ar/> http://www.vmf.com.ar **************************************************************************************************************************************************** Esta comunicación tiene como destinatario a la persona o empresa a la cual está dirigida y puede contener información confidencial y reservada. Si el lector de este mensaje no es el destinatario o sus empleados o representantes, deberá proceder a reenviar el presente a su remitente. La distribución, diseminación o copiado de este mensaje podría constituir violación a la ley. Gracias. This email and any files transmitted with it are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential, and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication in error, please notify us immediately by telephone and return the original message to us at the above address. Thank you. **************************************************************************************************************************************************** De: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> ] En nombre de Greg Shatan Enviado el: viernes, 11 de agosto de 2017 20:24 Para: Nahitchevansky, Georges CC: gnso-rpm-wg Asunto: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] 99%+ reduction in sunrise utilization rate per TLD supports EFF call for elimination of sunrise Agree with Cyntia as well. In a few posts, trademark owners have gone from being compared to shoving pregnant women out of bus sets to being compared with racists. It feels like Godwin's Law will be satisfied soon. Greg On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 7:17 PM, Nahitchevansky, Georges <ghn@kilpatricktownsend.com <mailto:ghn@kilpatricktownsend.com> > wrote: +1 Cynthia. From: Cyntia King Sent: Friday, August 11, 2017 7:12 PM To: 'George Kirikos'; 'gnso-rpm-wg' Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] 99%+ reduction in sunrise utilization rate per TLD supports EFF call for elimination of sunrise Hi George, I think your language is unnecessarily inflammatory & I’d appreciate it if you’d take it down a notch. You should prolly also stop conflating issues of simple commerce (what we’re doing here) w/ social injustice. Actually, trademarks do represent a legal bar to use of a name & those who obtain TMs do receive benefits not available to those who do not. That bar exists to protect consumers. We cannot ignore that TM owners: * Invest substantial sums in their marks (registration, marketing, defending, maintenance, etc) * Must protect their TMs or risk having them cancelled * Are forced to spend significant sums to stop abuse of their TM names when such abuse occurs It’s just not good policy to force TM owners to corral every horse that gets out of the barn, rather than taking simple steps to keep them from getting out in the first place. Cyntia King CEO & Founder <mailto:cking@modernip.com> cking@modernip.com -----Original Message----- From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> ] On Behalf Of George Kirikos Sent: Friday, August 11, 2017 5:00 PM To: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> > Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] 99%+ reduction in sunrise utilization rate per TLD supports EFF call for elimination of sunrise Hi Cyntia On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 5:48 PM, Cyntia King < <mailto:cking@modernip.com> cking@modernip.com> wrote:
TM owners do get a place at the front of the line - because the’ve paid for it.
There's no legal right to be "at the front of the line" because they've "paid for it". Others would equally be willing to simply pay, if the contention is only decided by money (i.e. auctions), as long as everyone is on the level playing field.
And those people “at the back of the bus” are not being excluded from anything. Any one of them can go to the front of the line if they also spend the time, money & effort to register their own TM.
That's not how problems of "discrimination" is solved. The "solution" isn't to "get a TM, because that's what takes you to the front of the line" -- that's how we got the gamed sunrises for "THE", "HOTEL", "HOTELS", and so on. The solution is to stop discrimination entirely (eliminating the sunrise). It's like suggesting to a non-white person, "you can go to the front of the bus" (in the segregated 1950s America) "by changing the colour of your skin!" The right solution isn't to perpetuate discrimination, but to end it. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 <tel:(416)%20588-0269> <http://www.leap.com/> http://www.leap.com/ _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg _____ Confidentiality Notice: This communication constitutes an electronic communication within the meaning of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 2510, and its disclosure is strictly limited to the recipient intended by the sender of this message. This transmission, and any attachments, may contain confidential attorney-client privileged information and attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. Please contact us immediately by return e-mail or at 404 815 6500 <tel:(404)%20815-6500> , and destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading or saving in any manner. _____ ***DISCLAIMER*** Per Treasury Department Circular 230: Any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein. _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
Hi Cyntia, You should know me better by now, after all these years. "Though this be madness, yet there is method in 't." --- Hamlet http://shakespeare.mit.edu/hamlet/hamlet.2.2.html Rick Mercer wrote an excellent piece "Why I rant. And why you should too." http://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/why-i-rant/ "Ranting is a 'skill' ... Everyone should rant. Ranting not only makes you feel better but occasionally, as my mother proved to me many times, you might get results—justice, satisfaction or a fudge stick. ... Canadians don’t rant enough. We are busy people and I get that. We don’t necessarily have the time or the inclination to come across like mad people who are constantly barking about waste, corruption and lack of transparency in three different levels of government. ... But the danger in not ranting is dire. If we as a nation don’t rant then the powers that be will use that complacency against us. ... Hopefully it will dawn on Canadians that the one thing we shouldn’t care about is what the government thinks of us or what names they call us. Prime ministers, premiers and cabinet ministers aren’t our friends; they are just people in bad suits who work for us. We are the boss. And if they want to work for us they have to listen to us, answer our questions and occasionally, like all employees, listen to the boss rant." A rant, agreed, but not not a bombastic (empty) one, but instead a methodical rant full of content and purpose, asking questions about limits of TMs, examples of genericide, and so on, interleaved with 'emotional' appeals. A very *strategic* rant. An intelligent choice to rant after looking at the playing field carefully. Take a look at the 2016 US Presidential election, and the Brexit votes. Which campaigns were more 'professional', yet which sides ultimately one? ;-) This is adaptive learning at work. I'm sure quite a lot of "professional" analysis and discourse has led to serious errors of policy at ICANN. I'm sure a lot of professionals made predictions about new gTLDs and appropriate strategies, for themselves and their clients, all now proven wrong. Many folks lost money, time, and careers due to those mistakes, betting the wrong way. They're looking for a new direction, superior analysis, and better solutions than those of the past. In the separate IGO PDP, for example, which shares some of the same membership as this working group, I need not rant as much, as the circumstances warrant different strategic behaviour. By the way, that PDP has a much narrower scope than this one, yet has taken 3 years (and followed up on a prior one that 'punted' some topics to this one). Thanks for letting us all know you're 'ready to vote', well in advance of data collection and analysis and arguments. By the time we actually get to a final report and consensus vote in 2022 or so, I'll be sure to look back at yesterday's email from you and smile. No one has ever lost money betting on ICANN delays. We've spent the last year or so on procedural issues, and finalizing various *questions*. Then, there's data collection. Then, there's analysis. Then there's arguments. Then there's iteration. The public will eventually weigh in at some point, and then we get to do things all over again. I think the evidence-based policy making (as opposed to the flawed policymaking at ICANN that got us here, which was based on incorrect conjectures and weak analysis) will ultimately lead us in the right direction. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ On Sun, Aug 13, 2017 at 8:10 PM, Cyntia King <cking@modernip.com> wrote:
Hi George,
You’re not “educating” me - I fully understand the difference between professional discourse & bombastic rant. You draw a false equivalence between matters of assault/human suffering and domain registrations. This isn’t “wallop” it’s disregard for the relative importance of these events. Let’s keep our arguments professional & not needlessly provocative.
I have read your emails & I understand your POV.
I have presented my own views & I’m satisfied you understand them.
I’m ready to vote.
Cyntia King
E: cking@modernip
O: +1 81-ModernIP
C: +1 818.209.6088
It seems there's no point you can't talk to death. 8 paragraphs on ranting, 1 to chide me for being ready to vote on thie Sunrise iaaue (let's not be obtuse), & 1 to slam ICANN. It is enough & is becoming a waste of my time. Your arguments have been unpersuasive, your personal I'm interested in hearing a bit more about Volker's proposal. Cyntia King On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 6:13 AM -0500, "George Kirikos" <icann@leap.com> wrote: Hi Cyntia, You should know me better by now, after all these years. "Though this be madness, yet there is method in 't." --- Hamlet http://shakespeare.mit.edu/hamlet/hamlet.2.2.html Rick Mercer wrote an excellent piece "Why I rant. And why you should too." http://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/why-i-rant/ "Ranting is a 'skill' ... Everyone should rant. Ranting not only makes you feel better but occasionally, as my mother proved to me many times, you might get results—justice, satisfaction or a fudge stick. ... Canadians don’t rant enough. We are busy people and I get that. We don’t necessarily have the time or the inclination to come across like mad people who are constantly barking about waste, corruption and lack of transparency in three different levels of government. ... But the danger in not ranting is dire. If we as a nation don’t rant then the powers that be will use that complacency against us. ... Hopefully it will dawn on Canadians that the one thing we shouldn’t care about is what the government thinks of us or what names they call us. Prime ministers, premiers and cabinet ministers aren’t our friends; they are just people in bad suits who work for us. We are the boss. And if they want to work for us they have to listen to us, answer our questions and occasionally, like all employees, listen to the boss rant." A rant, agreed, but not not a bombastic (empty) one, but instead a methodical rant full of content and purpose, asking questions about limits of TMs, examples of genericide, and so on, interleaved with 'emotional' appeals. A very *strategic* rant. An intelligent choice to rant after looking at the playing field carefully. Take a look at the 2016 US Presidential election, and the Brexit votes. Which campaigns were more 'professional', yet which sides ultimately one? ;-) This is adaptive learning at work. I'm sure quite a lot of "professional" analysis and discourse has led to serious errors of policy at ICANN. I'm sure a lot of professionals made predictions about new gTLDs and appropriate strategies, for themselves and their clients, all now proven wrong. Many folks lost money, time, and careers due to those mistakes, betting the wrong way. They're looking for a new direction, superior analysis, and better solutions than those of the past. In the separate IGO PDP, for example, which shares some of the same membership as this working group, I need not rant as much, as the circumstances warrant different strategic behaviour. By the way, that PDP has a much narrower scope than this one, yet has taken 3 years (and followed up on a prior one that 'punted' some topics to this one). Thanks for letting us all know you're 'ready to vote', well in advance of data collection and analysis and arguments. By the time we actually get to a final report and consensus vote in 2022 or so, I'll be sure to look back at yesterday's email from you and smile. No one has ever lost money betting on ICANN delays. We've spent the last year or so on procedural issues, and finalizing various *questions*. Then, there's data collection. Then, there's analysis. Then there's arguments. Then there's iteration. The public will eventually weigh in at some point, and then we get to do things all over again. I think the evidence-based policy making (as opposed to the flawed policymaking at ICANN that got us here, which was based on incorrect conjectures and weak analysis) will ultimately lead us in the right direction. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ On Sun, Aug 13, 2017 at 8:10 PM, Cyntia King wrote:
Hi George,
You’re not “educating” me - I fully understand the difference between professional discourse & bombastic rant. You draw a false equivalence between matters of assault/human suffering and domain registrations. This isn’t “wallop” it’s disregard for the relative importance of these events. Let’s keep our arguments professional & not needlessly provocative.
I have read your emails & I understand your POV.
I have presented my own views & I’m satisfied you understand them.
I’m ready to vote.
Cyntia King
E: cking@modernip
O: +1 81-ModernIP
C: +1 818.209.6088
_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
Hi George, It seems there's no point you can't talk to death. 8 paragraphs on ranting, 1 to chide me for being ready to vote on thie Sunrise iaaue (let's not be obtuse), & 1 to slam ICANN. It is enough & is becoming a waste of my time. Your arguments have been unpersuasive, the personal commentary boorish & the hyperbole distracting. I'm interested in hearing a bit more about Volker's proposal. Then perhaps we should address this issue & move on. Cyntia King On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 6:13 AM -0500, "George Kirikos" <icann@leap.com> wrote: Hi Cyntia, You should know me better by now, after all these years. "Though this be madness, yet there is method in 't." --- Hamlet http://shakespeare.mit.edu/hamlet/hamlet.2.2.html Rick Mercer wrote an excellent piece "Why I rant. And why you should too." http://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/why-i-rant/ "Ranting is a 'skill' ... Everyone should rant. Ranting not only makes you feel better but occasionally, as my mother proved to me many times, you might get results—justice, satisfaction or a fudge stick. ... Canadians don’t rant enough. We are busy people and I get that. We don’t necessarily have the time or the inclination to come across like mad people who are constantly barking about waste, corruption and lack of transparency in three different levels of government. ... But the danger in not ranting is dire. If we as a nation don’t rant then the powers that be will use that complacency against us. ... Hopefully it will dawn on Canadians that the one thing we shouldn’t care about is what the government thinks of us or what names they call us. Prime ministers, premiers and cabinet ministers aren’t our friends; they are just people in bad suits who work for us. We are the boss. And if they want to work for us they have to listen to us, answer our questions and occasionally, like all employees, listen to the boss rant." A rant, agreed, but not not a bombastic (empty) one, but instead a methodical rant full of content and purpose, asking questions about limits of TMs, examples of genericide, and so on, interleaved with 'emotional' appeals. A very *strategic* rant. An intelligent choice to rant after looking at the playing field carefully. Take a look at the 2016 US Presidential election, and the Brexit votes. Which campaigns were more 'professional', yet which sides ultimately one? ;-) This is adaptive learning at work. I'm sure quite a lot of "professional" analysis and discourse has led to serious errors of policy at ICANN. I'm sure a lot of professionals made predictions about new gTLDs and appropriate strategies, for themselves and their clients, all now proven wrong. Many folks lost money, time, and careers due to those mistakes, betting the wrong way. They're looking for a new direction, superior analysis, and better solutions than those of the past. In the separate IGO PDP, for example, which shares some of the same membership as this working group, I need not rant as much, as the circumstances warrant different strategic behaviour. By the way, that PDP has a much narrower scope than this one, yet has taken 3 years (and followed up on a prior one that 'punted' some topics to this one). Thanks for letting us all know you're 'ready to vote', well in advance of data collection and analysis and arguments. By the time we actually get to a final report and consensus vote in 2022 or so, I'll be sure to look back at yesterday's email from you and smile. No one has ever lost money betting on ICANN delays. We've spent the last year or so on procedural issues, and finalizing various *questions*. Then, there's data collection. Then, there's analysis. Then there's arguments. Then there's iteration. The public will eventually weigh in at some point, and then we get to do things all over again. I think the evidence-based policy making (as opposed to the flawed policymaking at ICANN that got us here, which was based on incorrect conjectures and weak analysis) will ultimately lead us in the right direction. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ On Sun, Aug 13, 2017 at 8:10 PM, Cyntia King wrote:
Hi George,
You’re not “educating” me - I fully understand the difference between professional discourse & bombastic rant. You draw a false equivalence between matters of assault/human suffering and domain registrations. This isn’t “wallop” it’s disregard for the relative importance of these events. Let’s keep our arguments professional & not needlessly provocative.
I have read your emails & I understand your POV.
I have presented my own views & I’m satisfied you understand them.
I’m ready to vote.
Cyntia King
E: cking@modernip
O: +1 81-ModernIP
C: +1 818.209.6088
_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
Thanks, Cyntia, not least for highlighting one of the essential aspects of both ICANN and TMs – consumer protection. A DN that is live just for a few days can, as we know, result in malware, phishing, advertising revenue… because good-faith consumers click through to it. And all that before considering the content of the site. Ex-post enforcement – as well as the costs etc. already described – results in harm to good faith consumers. Even a successful UDRP, with a transfer, can mean the TM owner having to maintain (and pay for) a DN they never wanted, simply to prevent consumer confusion & harm: e.g. I know of toy brands who have taken action against, and now own, DNs that have attracted children to content they really should not ever see. All of this harm is proved, on record and known: we should not sacrifice consumer protection on the altar of making a quick buck. Opening a refreshment stand to sell horse urine under a well-known TM (the latter having specific protections anyway) … well, horse urine is indeed a favourite stabiliser for fake whisky producers but I’m pretty sure consumers, and public health inspectors, wouldn’t treat this deliberate fraud so lightly. Why is the theoretical domain speculator worthy of more protection than consumers, given that there are almost infinite possible DNs from which the good-faith speculator/business/registrant can choose rather than, in this example, a WKM? As for TM owners being the beneficiaries of positive discrimination, the ability for TM owner to (pay to) register in Sunrise (assuming it has paid to satisfy the legal requirements to register a TM and then paid to record it in the TMCH) does not mean it will (pay to) register a DN in Sunrise. Just as receiving a Notice doesn’t mean a TM owner will automatically take action against you; I can’t envisage a TM owner (who knows enough about the law & practice of TMs and DNs to have registered a TM and recorded it in the TMCH) taking spurious action against TM.somethingtotallyunconnected. Suggesting that all TMCH record owners will automatically (a) want that DN in every gTLD and (b) take action against anyone else trying to register such a DN anywhere at all and that (c) all of this is automatic and easy and cheap… is just silly. And not true. As for there being no effective non-TM registrants constituency within ICANN, I beg to differ. A cursory look at this list, or indeed any list out-with the CSG, may show less than TM-friendly voices. Kind regards Marie From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Cking Modern IP Sent: Monday, August 14, 2017 1:53 PM To: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>; George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] 99%+ reduction in sunrise utilization rate per TLD supports EFF call for elimination of sunrise Hi George, It seems there's no point you can't talk to death. 8 paragraphs on ranting, 1 to chide me for being ready to vote on thie Sunrise iaaue (let's not be obtuse), & 1 to slam ICANN. It is enough & is becoming a waste of my time. Your arguments have been unpersuasive, the personal commentary boorish & the hyperbole distracting. I'm interested in hearing a bit more about Volker's proposal. Then perhaps we should address this issue & move on. Cyntia King On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 6:13 AM -0500, "George Kirikos" <icann@leap.com<mailto:icann@leap.com>> wrote: Hi Cyntia, You should know me better by now, after all these years. "Though this be madness, yet there is method in 't." --- Hamlet http://shakespeare.mit.edu/hamlet/hamlet.2.2.html Rick Mercer wrote an excellent piece "Why I rant. And why you should too." http://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/why-i-rant/ "Ranting is a 'skill' ... Everyone should rant. Ranting not only makes you feel better but occasionally, as my mother proved to me many times, you might get results—justice, satisfaction or a fudge stick. ... Canadians don’t rant enough. We are busy people and I get that. We don’t necessarily have the time or the inclination to come across like mad people who are constantly barking about waste, corruption and lack of transparency in three different levels of government. ... But the danger in not ranting is dire. If we as a nation don’t rant then the powers that be will use that complacency against us. ... Hopefully it will dawn on Canadians that the one thing we shouldn’t care about is what the government thinks of us or what names they call us. Prime ministers, premiers and cabinet ministers aren’t our friends; they are just people in bad suits who work for us. We are the boss. And if they want to work for us they have to listen to us, answer our questions and occasionally, like all employees, listen to the boss rant." A rant, agreed, but not not a bombastic (empty) one, but instead a methodical rant full of content and purpose, asking questions about limits of TMs, examples of genericide, and so on, interleaved with 'emotional' appeals. A very *strategic* rant. An intelligent choice to rant after looking at the playing field carefully. Take a look at the 2016 US Presidential election, and the Brexit votes. Which campaigns were more 'professional', yet which sides ultimately one? ;-) This is adaptive learning at work. I'm sure quite a lot of "professional" analysis and discourse has led to serious errors of policy at ICANN. I'm sure a lot of professionals made predictions about new gTLDs and appropriate strategies, for themselves and their clients, all now proven wrong. Many folks lost money, time, and careers due to those mistakes, betting the wrong way. They're looking for a new direction, superior analysis, and better solutions than those of the past. In the separate IGO PDP, for example, which shares some of the same membership as this working group, I need not rant as much, as the circumstances warrant different strategic behaviour. By the way, that PDP has a much narrower scope than this one, yet has taken 3 years (and followed up on a prior one that 'punted' some topics to this one). Thanks for letting us all know you're 'ready to vote', well in advance of data collection and analysis and arguments. By the time we actually get to a final report and consensus vote in 2022 or so, I'll be sure to look back at yesterday's email from you and smile. No one has ever lost money betting on ICANN delays. We've spent the last year or so on procedural issues, and finalizing various *questions*. Then, there's data collection. Then, there's analysis. Then there's arguments. Then there's iteration. The public will eventually weigh in at some point, and then we get to do things all over again. I think the evidence-based policy making (as opposed to the flawed policymaking at ICANN that got us here, which was based on incorrect conjectures and weak analysis) will ultimately lead us in the right direction. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ On Sun, Aug 13, 2017 at 8:10 PM, Cyntia King wrote:
Hi George,
You’re not “educating” me - I fully understand the difference between professional discourse & bombastic rant. You draw a false equivalence between matters of assault/human suffering and domain registrations. This isn’t “wallop” it’s disregard for the relative importance of these events. Let’s keep our arguments professional & not needlessly provocative.
I have read your emails & I understand your POV.
I have presented my own views & I’m satisfied you understand them.
I’m ready to vote.
Cyntia King
E: cking@modernip
O: +1 81-ModernIP
C: +1 818.209.6088
_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
That one is relatively easy. At this time, registries are already required to remove various lists of domains from the pool of available domains: - domains blocked by ICANN - domains blocked by policies or agreement (country names and abbreviations, etc) - name collision matches - for some geoTLDs: domains reverved by the government entity for their own use - unpriced premium names This proposal would simply add one further category of names that would be reserved for the general public, but open for registration by authorized entities. The TMCH would provide the list to the registry operators. Best, Volker Am 11.08.2017 um 20:19 schrieb trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com:
One other question. How do you propose removing the eligible sunrise domain names from the pool of available domain names? Would the TMCH provide a list of all unique marks registered to each registrar?
Best regards,
**
*Marc H. Trachtenberg* Shareholder Greenberg Traurig, LLP | 77 West Wacker Drive | Suite 3100 | Chicago, IL 60601 Tel 312.456.1020
Mobile 773.677.3305
trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com <mailto:trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com> | www.gtlaw.com <http://www.gtlaw.com/>
Greenberg Traurig
*From:*gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Mike Rodenbaugh *Sent:* Friday, August 11, 2017 1:13 PM *To:* Volker Greimann *Cc:* David A. Tait *Subject:* Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] 99%+ reduction in sunrise utilization rate per TLD supports EFF call for elimination of sunrise
I like Volker's idea at first glance. It seems at least worthy of exploration whether indeed it "would solve many of the existing issues." Volker could you provide a litte more depth to that -- what issues you think might be solved?
Thanks,
Mike
Mike Rodenbaugh
RODENBAUGH LAW
tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087
http://rodenbaugh.com <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__rodenbaugh.com&d=DwMFaQ&...>
On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 6:44 AM, Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>> wrote:
I will not dispute the effectiveness of Sunrise periods for rights holders, however there may be better options that provide just as much protection but have less impact on the release of a new TLD.
For example, sunrise could be run concurrently with the general launch of a TLD simply by removing the eligible sunrise domain names from the pool of available domain names. Rights holders could still use their TMCH-tokens to register these semi-reserved strings as domain names but the release of the TLD to the general public would not be held back. Other potential registrants would merely receive a notice that this string is reserved until date X due to claimed rights of third parties (which could double as an abbreviated claims notice), or even opt to queue their registration request until the reservation period is over.
This would actually solve many of the existing issues.
Best,
Volker
Am 11.08.2017 um 15:12 schrieb Nahitchevansky, Georges:
I was not going to engage in yet more back and forth on sunrise, but in reading your email, and those of several others, I feel compelled to say something on this by the numbers discussion. This type of metric driven approach is very much akin to driving down a road with blinders on either side. It's a tad pedantic and as we know from history these types of approaches (many times pushed by bureaucrats) can often lead to disastrous decisions (e.g. Soviet style five year plans). You need to look at the overall situation and what is going on, as opposed to just getting caught up in the numbers -- which after all can get sliced and diced any number of ways. The reality is that brand owners are using sunrise to protect their brands in the key extensions that relate to their businesses. The numbers may not be huge per se, but the new gTLD program has pretty much, by all accounts, not been the success that ICANN had hoped for. Moreover, we all know that the success of the extensions has been quite uneven. Some are barely breaking even, some have been a great success, others have failed and yet others have only experienced lackluster results. What all of this means is that some extensions are simply not worth registering in.
That being said, sunrise does have an important value. If there are up to 100,000 plus registrations based on bona fide brands, and some on the most valuable brands in the world, then the system is working as it is preventing a significant amount of cybersquatting . If we go by he metrics you love, then it is not rocket science to figure out that a landrush approach is going to lead to a large spike of abuse (as we have seen in the past in no sunrise situations). This in turn leads to significant costs of investigating and pursuing infringements, all of which ultimately leads to more costs to consumers and loss of faith in the integrity of the system -- particularly if consumers get tricked or defrauded by a domain name that appears to be related to a brand (e.g., Gucci.shoes) and which could have been registered during a sunrise period.
So while I understand that brand owners are not making sunrise registrations across 1000 plus extensions, the point is that they are generally picking the most logical extensions and are not abusing the sunrise system. So whether the number is one percent or less or ten percent, that number doesn't really tell the story. 100,000 plus sunrise registrations prevents a ton of abuse, which benefits everyone in the end. The numbers only approach really misses the mark. It's like saying that if a disease affects less that 1% of the world population, we should not waste money on finding a cure for it and stop all funding on such research (even though the costs of treating the disease for the less than 1% will be staggeringly high).
So in closing, I again urge you to concentrate on trying to find a fix to address the limited speculator issue as opposed to beating a dead horse on the sunrise issue.
Original Message From: George Kirikos Sent: Friday, August 11, 2017 12:22 AM To: gnso-rpm-wg Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] 99%+ reduction in sunrise utilization rate per TLD supports EFF call for elimination of sunrise
Hello,
On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 11:21 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote:
I don't see the math that created your "talking point" of a "99%+ reduction in sunrise." Can you show your work please?
The post at:
http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2017-August/002321.html <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__mm.icann.org_pipermail_g...>
showed numerous sunrise statistics, ranging from 15,000 on the low end for .mobi (.co was slightly lower, although that's a ccTLD, not a TLD that ICANN is involved with in any way), 32,000 for .asia, 80,000 for .biz/.xxx, and who knows what it was for .info?
Even taking the lowest of those (15,000) as the base, 130 (average new gTLD sunrise from The Analysis Group report) divided by 15,000 = 0.0087 = 0.87%, which is less than 1%, i.e. a 99%+ reduction. Of course, if one chose a higher base (.asia, .xxx, .biz, .etc.), or an average of those other sunrises, the reduction is even greater than if one had used the lowest sunrise (from .mobi).
As for your other statement:
We can't expect Sunrise registrations to outperform the New gTLD Program generally."
While the new gTLD program has been a disaster, it hasn't been an underperformance of 99%+ of expectations (perhaps more like 80% to 90% underperformance). Thus, while it's obvious that both have been failures, sunrise usage is an even greater failure than new gTLDs overall. So, even on that relative scale, the sunrise period should be eliminated.
Since I know you'll ask "George, why do you say there's been an 80% or 90% underpeformance for new gTLDs?" let me answer that now to save time. I'll use as my reference (besides the obvious general observations of most informed observers) ICANN's own stats:
http://domainincite.com/18857-new-gtld-sales-miss-icann-estimates-by-a-mile <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__domainincite.com_18857-2...>
where the numbers came in at just 18% of ICANN's original 2014 expectations. For the math-challenged, 100% - 18% = 82% as the level of underperformance.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 <tel:416-588-0269> http://www.leap.com/ <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.leap.com_&d=DwMFaQ&c...> _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...>
________________________________
Confidentiality Notice: This communication constitutes an electronic communication within the meaning of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 2510, and its disclosure is strictly limited to the recipient intended by the sender of this message. This transmission, and any attachments, may contain confidential attorney-client privileged information and attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. Please contact us immediately by return e-mail or at 404 815 6500 <tel:404%20815%206500>, and destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading or saving in any manner.
________________________________
***DISCLAIMER*** Per Treasury Department Circular 230: Any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein. _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...>
-- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung.
Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung -
Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 <tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20901> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 <tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20851> Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>
Web: www.key-systems.net <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.key-2Dsystems.net&d=...> / www.RRPproxy.net <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.RRPproxy.net&d=DwMFa...> www.domaindiscount24.com <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.domaindiscount24.com...> / www.BrandShelter.com <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.BrandShelter.com&d=D...>
Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.facebook.com_KeySyst...> www.twitter.com/key_systems <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.twitter.com_key-5Fsy...>
Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.keydrive.lu&d=DwMFaQ...>
Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen.
--------------------------------------------
Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Best regards,
Volker A. Greimann - legal department -
Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 <tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20901> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 <tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20851> Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>
Web: www.key-systems.net <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.key-2Dsystems.net&d=...> / www.RRPproxy.net <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.RRPproxy.net&d=DwMFa...> www.domaindiscount24.com <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.domaindiscount24.com...> / www.BrandShelter.com <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.BrandShelter.com&d=D...>
Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.facebook.com_KeySyst...> www.twitter.com/key_systems <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.twitter.com_key-5Fsy...>
CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.keydrive.lu&d=DwMFaQ...>
This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.
_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...>
------------------------------------------------------------------------ If you are not an intended recipient of confidential and privileged information in this email, please delete it, notify us immediately at postmaster@gtlaw.com, and do not use or disseminate such information.
-- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.twitter.com/key_systems Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.twitter.com/key_systems CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.
Hi Volker, On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 6:43 AM, Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net> wrote:
This proposal would simply add one further category of names that would be reserved for the general public, but open for registration by authorized entities. The TMCH would provide the list to the registry operators.
I believe the TM folks had a grave concern about that "list" of TMCH marks being made public (which effectively would be the case, if it was simply handed over to many registry operators). Given the number of distinct registry operators that would have access to it, each one would have plausible deniability as it got leaked/distributed, and it would be impossible to identify the source/leaker who 'violated' any terms restricting its use. That list could then form the basis of premium names lists, amongst other issues, in their eyes. I don't have any problems with that list being public and/or "effectively" public and widely distributed, though. It's been repeatedly asked for by Paul Keating and others in this PDP as well, so that we can dive deep and research the topics at stake in this review of RPMs. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
Thanks George. Having the list public serves many benefits, least of all to allow registrars that could not offer new TLDs until the claims phases closed to see these domains from day one simply because their systems di not allow for processing of these notices. I heard a few statements to the effect that it would have been no issue if a list had been provided but having to change the code for the additional query and outputting the notice was either impossible or just too expensive for some registrars. But even if the side that wants to prevent the publication of the list prevails this does not mean that the "parallel sunrise" would not work. The registry could simply query the TMCH for each registration request as part of the registration process during the parallel sunrise phase and only process the registration if either the TMCH responds with a negative or if the proper TMCH file is included in the registration request. This could work similar to the current claims process and would therefore not even need that much implementation work. It would not help the registrars that currently adopt new gTLDs late, but it would not worsen their situation either. I will admit to one issue of this proposal for trademark owners and that is that they would not be protected against normal registrations if they only enter their mark into the TMCH during the period, but I feel that issue is minor enough and easily preventable by proper planning. Best, Volker Am 14.08.2017 um 13:22 schrieb George Kirikos:
Hi Volker,
On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 6:43 AM, Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net> wrote:
This proposal would simply add one further category of names that would be reserved for the general public, but open for registration by authorized entities. The TMCH would provide the list to the registry operators. I believe the TM folks had a grave concern about that "list" of TMCH marks being made public (which effectively would be the case, if it was simply handed over to many registry operators). Given the number of distinct registry operators that would have access to it, each one would have plausible deniability as it got leaked/distributed, and it would be impossible to identify the source/leaker who 'violated' any terms restricting its use.
That list could then form the basis of premium names lists, amongst other issues, in their eyes.
I don't have any problems with that list being public and/or "effectively" public and widely distributed, though. It's been repeatedly asked for by Paul Keating and others in this PDP as well, so that we can dive deep and research the topics at stake in this review of RPMs.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
-- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.twitter.com/key_systems Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.twitter.com/key_systems CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.
Hi Volker, On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 8:02 AM, Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net> wrote:
Thanks George. Having the list public serves many benefits, least of all to allow registrars that could not offer new TLDs until the claims phases closed to see these domains from day one simply because their systems di not allow for processing of these notices.
I agree with you 100%, that there are many benefits that should far exceed the costs. It should have been public from day 1, and this PDP has the opportunity to correct past mistakes, based on the experiences/data/evidence that didn't exist before the policy was created. One of the things I wanted to ask you (and other registrars and/or ISPs can weigh in too), is whether you have any data on ARPU (average revenue per user) for sunrise registrations, compared with 'normal' registrations (e.g. non-defensive registrations, registered in landrush or GA). The reason I ask this is that it's an important consideration when looking at the overall costs/benefits of the sunrise period. My hypothesis is that a TM holder buying a domain for defensive purposes *isn't* going to be buying things like webhosting, SSL, web design services, email hosting and all the other kinds of offerings from registrars and resellers (especially the consumer-oriented registrars like GoDaddy, Tucows, etc., as opposed to the 'brand protection' registrars like Markmonitor, CSC, etc.). In essense, that sunrise-registered domain name is blocking someone else who *would* be buying those high margin value-added services from registrars and their resellers/partners. If my hypothesis is correct, that difference should be reflected in the ARPU of registrars and their resellers/service providers. It should be measurable. We know that names 'captured' in sunrise have some obvious negative effects on registry operators. For exampled the delayed starts, compliance costs, being forced to spend on monopolistic providers (TMCH etc.) and regulatory burden. There's the "deprivation of oxygen" as defensive sunrise-registered names aren't 'used', and thus not promoted by the end-user which would promote the entire extension (e.g. just like Verisign doesn't have to spend much promoting dot-com, because there's are many end-users already promoting active websites ending in dot-com). But, does that also hold true for the registrars, via experience/data? I'm sure the registrars would guard the precise *magnitude* of that data (except for public companies like GoDaddy which publish their total ARPU). But perhaps some registrars might share the *relative* ARPUs for the various subsets of registered names. e.g. if a sunrise-registered domain name has a ARPU indexed to be 1.00 (or $X), is the ARPU for a landrush or GA domain name higher, or lower, and by how much? (e.g. if it's 2.00 or $2X, then that's a real cost of sunrises for registrars/resellers/partners). This is perhaps data that should be broadly solicited from registrars/hosting providers/web designers, etc., and added by ICANN staff to the sunrise data collection document. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
Hi George, this is a difficult question to answer, especially for registrars operating a reseller channel as their users are usually not the registrants. For us, revenue is based on purchase price, maintenance cost and implementation costs. So I would assume the revenue to be higher for sunrise registration simply based on the fact that most registries have higher sunrise registration fees than standartd registration fees. But this will vary from registrar to registrar. Some registrars charge nothing over the purchase prices and make their money with add-on services. It really depends on the business case. I do agree that domains that are registered but not used are detrimental to the registry if there is someone who wanted to buy and use it but could not. But this is based mainly on my experience that the best advertizement for a new TLD is publicv use cases. The more a TLD is seen in the wild and used by its registrants, the faster it will usually grow, at least in my personal observation (for which I have no studies to back that up). Best, Volker Am 14.08.2017 um 14:26 schrieb George Kirikos:
Hi Volker,
On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 8:02 AM, Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net> wrote:
Thanks George. Having the list public serves many benefits, least of all to allow registrars that could not offer new TLDs until the claims phases closed to see these domains from day one simply because their systems di not allow for processing of these notices. I agree with you 100%, that there are many benefits that should far exceed the costs. It should have been public from day 1, and this PDP has the opportunity to correct past mistakes, based on the experiences/data/evidence that didn't exist before the policy was created.
One of the things I wanted to ask you (and other registrars and/or ISPs can weigh in too), is whether you have any data on ARPU (average revenue per user) for sunrise registrations, compared with 'normal' registrations (e.g. non-defensive registrations, registered in landrush or GA).
The reason I ask this is that it's an important consideration when looking at the overall costs/benefits of the sunrise period.
My hypothesis is that a TM holder buying a domain for defensive purposes *isn't* going to be buying things like webhosting, SSL, web design services, email hosting and all the other kinds of offerings from registrars and resellers (especially the consumer-oriented registrars like GoDaddy, Tucows, etc., as opposed to the 'brand protection' registrars like Markmonitor, CSC, etc.). In essense, that sunrise-registered domain name is blocking someone else who *would* be buying those high margin value-added services from registrars and their resellers/partners. If my hypothesis is correct, that difference should be reflected in the ARPU of registrars and their resellers/service providers. It should be measurable.
We know that names 'captured' in sunrise have some obvious negative effects on registry operators. For exampled the delayed starts, compliance costs, being forced to spend on monopolistic providers (TMCH etc.) and regulatory burden. There's the "deprivation of oxygen" as defensive sunrise-registered names aren't 'used', and thus not promoted by the end-user which would promote the entire extension (e.g. just like Verisign doesn't have to spend much promoting dot-com, because there's are many end-users already promoting active websites ending in dot-com).
But, does that also hold true for the registrars, via experience/data? I'm sure the registrars would guard the precise *magnitude* of that data (except for public companies like GoDaddy which publish their total ARPU). But perhaps some registrars might share the *relative* ARPUs for the various subsets of registered names.
e.g. if a sunrise-registered domain name has a ARPU indexed to be 1.00 (or $X), is the ARPU for a landrush or GA domain name higher, or lower, and by how much? (e.g. if it's 2.00 or $2X, then that's a real cost of sunrises for registrars/resellers/partners).
This is perhaps data that should be broadly solicited from registrars/hosting providers/web designers, etc., and added by ICANN staff to the sunrise data collection document.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
-- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.twitter.com/key_systems Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.twitter.com/key_systems CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.
Hi Volker, On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 8:49 AM, Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net> wrote:
this is a difficult question to answer, especially for registrars operating a reseller channel as their users are usually not the registrants. For us, revenue is based on purchase price, maintenance cost and implementation costs. So I would assume the revenue to be higher for sunrise registration simply based on the fact that most registries have higher sunrise registration fees than standartd registration fees.
But this will vary from registrar to registrar. Some registrars charge nothing over the purchase prices and make their money with add-on services. It really depends on the business case.
Agreed, so the data that would need to be collected should come from the retail consumer-facing registrars (the GoDaddy, Endurance types). e.g. for Tucows, it wouldn't come from just the info from the Tucows<-->reseller market, but instead from their reseller channel (which has all the various hosting providers, SSL, SEO, webdesign, and so on). I hope ICANN staff (or those on the relevant subteam) are taking notes, or I can mention this on a future call.
I do agree that domains that are registered but not used are detrimental to the registry if there is someone who wanted to buy and use it but could not. But this is based mainly on my experience that the best advertizement for a new TLD is publicv use cases. The more a TLD is seen in the wild and used by its registrants, the faster it will usually grow, at least in my personal observation (for which I have no studies to back that up).
Mine too. [John McCormac of HosterStats.com might have some data, as he's done much research into usage across TLDs; he's not in this PDP at present, but should be a familiar name to those following the comments in various domain industry blogs, etc.] The case of the .io ccTLD is probably one of the best examples of this, where it kind of went viral due to the public use cases, especially for tech companies. A TLD dominated by defensive registrations is unlikely to ever go viral like that, to the long-term detriment of that registry. I think those defensive-registration dominated registries are kind of like the "cigar-butt" investing approach that famed investor Warren Buffett started off doing: https://www.forbes.com/sites/investor/2016/01/19/how-buffett-and-greenblatt-... where it's a pure value play (i.e. sharp financial calculations as to how long those defensive TM registrations can be 'milked' over time, combined with trying to get away with raising prices over time), rather than the "growth" plays that he moved on to over time. For the "cigar butt" investors in new gTLD registries, their models and target markets (i.e. brand owners who don't want to register, but feel compelled to pay for those unwanted names) are going to be quite different than the ones trying to grow into household names to compete with dot-com/net/org and the larger ccTLDs. My best guess is that the value play (cigar butts) model won't last (already demonstrably down the 99% as per the title of this thread of emails), because it'll get even worse if a future round of new TLDs expands the total TLDs that need defensive coverage. The natural trend will continue, namely towards shifting budgets to curative rights protections by brandholders, and making even deeper cuts to the defensive registration spending. So, if we think of the "mix", the fraction of spending on sunrises will drop. Also, that overall spending would be spread across more TLDs, hurting each TLD in the process, both existing and future, if they relied upon that 'cigar butt' model. Some spreadsheets of registries or applicants will need to be revised, again and again (just as ICANN's models have been redone)! :-) Thanks Volker. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
While interesting, I believe Volker’s proposal would add an additional level of clerical requirements while at the same time providing an additional point of possible error and effort in the process. Michael R. From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Volker Greimann Sent: Monday, August 14, 2017 3:43 AM To: trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com; mike@rodenbaugh.com Cc: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] 99%+ reduction in sunrise utilization rate per TLD supports EFF call for elimination of sunrise That one is relatively easy. At this time, registries are already required to remove various lists of domains from the pool of available domains: - domains blocked by ICANN - domains blocked by policies or agreement (country names and abbreviations, etc) - name collision matches - for some geoTLDs: domains reverved by the government entity for their own use - unpriced premium names This proposal would simply add one further category of names that would be reserved for the general public, but open for registration by authorized entities. The TMCH would provide the list to the registry operators. Best, Volker Am 11.08.2017 um 20:19 schrieb trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com<mailto:trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com>: One other question. How do you propose removing the eligible sunrise domain names from the pool of available domain names? Would the TMCH provide a list of all unique marks registered to each registrar? Best regards, Marc H. Trachtenberg Shareholder Greenberg Traurig, LLP | 77 West Wacker Drive | Suite 3100 | Chicago, IL 60601 Tel 312.456.1020 Mobile 773.677.3305 trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com<mailto:trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com> | www.gtlaw.com<http://www.gtlaw.com/> [Greenberg Traurig] From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh Sent: Friday, August 11, 2017 1:13 PM To: Volker Greimann Cc: David A. Tait Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] 99%+ reduction in sunrise utilization rate per TLD supports EFF call for elimination of sunrise I like Volker's idea at first glance. It seems at least worthy of exploration whether indeed it "would solve many of the existing issues." Volker could you provide a litte more depth to that -- what issues you think might be solved? Thanks, Mike Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__rodenbaugh.com&d=DwMFaQ&c=2s2mvbfY0UoSKkl6_Ol9wg&r=L7MB7eHT-UoCXD4iA3c7Sm3JrKXt7T1dG3NjBzCxm1c&m=jwg72GwxQbX1qNofe94rlCW9tHeCPXLavSkWToGTxv0&s=0UbQGByGsiXMTHxa2peJUr-Vj9B26hhK3Ykh2kbLRZE&e=> On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 6:44 AM, Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>> wrote: I will not dispute the effectiveness of Sunrise periods for rights holders, however there may be better options that provide just as much protection but have less impact on the release of a new TLD. For example, sunrise could be run concurrently with the general launch of a TLD simply by removing the eligible sunrise domain names from the pool of available domain names. Rights holders could still use their TMCH-tokens to register these semi-reserved strings as domain names but the release of the TLD to the general public would not be held back. Other potential registrants would merely receive a notice that this string is reserved until date X due to claimed rights of third parties (which could double as an abbreviated claims notice), or even opt to queue their registration request until the reservation period is over. This would actually solve many of the existing issues. Best, Volker Am 11.08.2017 um 15:12 schrieb Nahitchevansky, Georges: I was not going to engage in yet more back and forth on sunrise, but in reading your email, and those of several others, I feel compelled to say something on this by the numbers discussion. This type of metric driven approach is very much akin to driving down a road with blinders on either side. It's a tad pedantic and as we know from history these types of approaches (many times pushed by bureaucrats) can often lead to disastrous decisions (e.g. Soviet style five year plans). You need to look at the overall situation and what is going on, as opposed to just getting caught up in the numbers -- which after all can get sliced and diced any number of ways. The reality is that brand owners are using sunrise to protect their brands in the key extensions that relate to their businesses. The numbers may not be huge per se, but the new gTLD program has pretty much, by all accounts, not been the success that ICANN had hoped for. Moreover, we all know that the success of the extensions has been quite uneven. Some are barely breaking even, some have been a great success, others have failed and yet others have only experienced lackluster results. What all of this means is that some extensions are simply not worth registering in. That being said, sunrise does have an important value. If there are up to 100,000 plus registrations based on bona fide brands, and some on the most valuable brands in the world, then the system is working as it is preventing a significant amount of cybersquatting . If we go by he metrics you love, then it is not rocket science to figure out that a landrush approach is going to lead to a large spike of abuse (as we have seen in the past in no sunrise situations). This in turn leads to significant costs of investigating and pursuing infringements, all of which ultimately leads to more costs to consumers and loss of faith in the integrity of the system -- particularly if consumers get tricked or defrauded by a domain name that appears to be related to a brand (e.g., Gucci.shoes) and which could have been registered during a sunrise period. So while I understand that brand owners are not making sunrise registrations across 1000 plus extensions, the point is that they are generally picking the most logical extensions and are not abusing the sunrise system. So whether the number is one percent or less or ten percent, that number doesn't really tell the story. 100,000 plus sunrise registrations prevents a ton of abuse, which benefits everyone in the end. The numbers only approach really misses the mark. It's like saying that if a disease affects less that 1% of the world population, we should not waste money on finding a cure for it and stop all funding on such research (even though the costs of treating the disease for the less than 1% will be staggeringly high). So in closing, I again urge you to concentrate on trying to find a fix to address the limited speculator issue as opposed to beating a dead horse on the sunrise issue. Original Message From: George Kirikos Sent: Friday, August 11, 2017 12:22 AM To: gnso-rpm-wg Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] 99%+ reduction in sunrise utilization rate per TLD supports EFF call for elimination of sunrise Hello, On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 11:21 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote: I don't see the math that created your "talking point" of a "99%+ reduction in sunrise." Can you show your work please? The post at: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2017-August/002321.html<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__mm.icann.org_pipermail_gnso-2Drpm-2Dwg_2017-2DAugust_002321.html&d=DwMFaQ&c=2s2mvbfY0UoSKkl6_Ol9wg&r=L7MB7eHT-UoCXD4iA3c7Sm3JrKXt7T1dG3NjBzCxm1c&m=jwg72GwxQbX1qNofe94rlCW9tHeCPXLavSkWToGTxv0&s=SaVSlCKYsOB5W4Cpqr6ExGPmyYwDyH9LIPojsca4QQM&e=> showed numerous sunrise statistics, ranging from 15,000 on the low end for .mobi (.co was slightly lower, although that's a ccTLD, not a TLD that ICANN is involved with in any way), 32,000 for .asia, 80,000 for .biz/.xxx, and who knows what it was for .info? Even taking the lowest of those (15,000) as the base, 130 (average new gTLD sunrise from The Analysis Group report) divided by 15,000 = 0.0087 = 0.87%, which is less than 1%, i.e. a 99%+ reduction. Of course, if one chose a higher base (.asia, .xxx, .biz, .etc.), or an average of those other sunrises, the reduction is even greater than if one had used the lowest sunrise (from .mobi). As for your other statement: We can't expect Sunrise registrations to outperform the New gTLD Program generally." While the new gTLD program has been a disaster, it hasn't been an underperformance of 99%+ of expectations (perhaps more like 80% to 90% underperformance). Thus, while it's obvious that both have been failures, sunrise usage is an even greater failure than new gTLDs overall. So, even on that relative scale, the sunrise period should be eliminated. Since I know you'll ask "George, why do you say there's been an 80% or 90% underpeformance for new gTLDs?" let me answer that now to save time. I'll use as my reference (besides the obvious general observations of most informed observers) ICANN's own stats: http://domainincite.com/18857-new-gtld-sales-miss-icann-estimates-by-a-mile<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__domainincite.com_18857-2Dnew-2Dgtld-2Dsales-2Dmiss-2Dicann-2Destimates-2Dby-2Da-2Dmile&d=DwMFaQ&c=2s2mvbfY0UoSKkl6_Ol9wg&r=L7MB7eHT-UoCXD4iA3c7Sm3JrKXt7T1dG3NjBzCxm1c&m=jwg72GwxQbX1qNofe94rlCW9tHeCPXLavSkWToGTxv0&s=ENSMgl5Vq0ESXh9K21BdGfbkWFgI8DEjafYfoyk6jdk&e=> where the numbers came in at just 18% of ICANN's original 2014 expectations. For the math-challenged, 100% - 18% = 82% as the level of underperformance. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269<tel:416-588-0269> http://www.leap.com/<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.leap.com_&d=DwMFaQ&c=2s2mvbfY0UoSKkl6_Ol9wg&r=L7MB7eHT-UoCXD4iA3c7Sm3JrKXt7T1dG3NjBzCxm1c&m=jwg72GwxQbX1qNofe94rlCW9tHeCPXLavSkWToGTxv0&s=kHA9dmDW57Os7tC98-17v7gq3b1fuQlSXsCWSuFFG5s&e=> _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_gnso-2Drpm-2Dwg&d=DwMFaQ&c=2s2mvbfY0UoSKkl6_Ol9wg&r=L7MB7eHT-UoCXD4iA3c7Sm3JrKXt7T1dG3NjBzCxm1c&m=jwg72GwxQbX1qNofe94rlCW9tHeCPXLavSkWToGTxv0&s=L5xCyWjXz-wJa5DougcLVpIPPWlTxh4NXwwzhsdokec&e=> ________________________________ Confidentiality Notice: This communication constitutes an electronic communication within the meaning of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 2510, and its disclosure is strictly limited to the recipient intended by the sender of this message. This transmission, and any attachments, may contain confidential attorney-client privileged information and attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. Please contact us immediately by return e-mail or at 404 815 6500<tel:404%20815%206500>, and destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading or saving in any manner. ________________________________ ***DISCLAIMER*** Per Treasury Department Circular 230: Any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein. _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_gnso-2Drpm-2Dwg&d=DwMFaQ&c=2s2mvbfY0UoSKkl6_Ol9wg&r=L7MB7eHT-UoCXD4iA3c7Sm3JrKXt7T1dG3NjBzCxm1c&m=jwg72GwxQbX1qNofe94rlCW9tHeCPXLavSkWToGTxv0&s=L5xCyWjXz-wJa5DougcLVpIPPWlTxh4NXwwzhsdokec&e=> -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901<tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20901> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851<tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20851> Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.key-2Dsystems.net&d=...> / www.RRPproxy.net<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.RRPproxy.net&d=DwMFa...> www.domaindiscount24.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.domaindiscount24.com...> / www.BrandShelter.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.BrandShelter.com&d=D...> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.facebook.com_KeySyst...> www.twitter.com/key_systems<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.twitter.com_key-5Fsy...> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.keydrive.lu&d=DwMFaQ...> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901<tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20901> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851<tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20851> Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.key-2Dsystems.net&d=...> / www.RRPproxy.net<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.RRPproxy.net&d=DwMFa...> www.domaindiscount24.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.domaindiscount24.com...> / www.BrandShelter.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.BrandShelter.com&d=D...> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.facebook.com_KeySyst...> www.twitter.com/key_systems<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.twitter.com_key-5Fsy...> CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.keydrive.lu&d=DwMFaQ...> This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone. _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_gnso-2Drpm-2Dwg&d=DwMFaQ&c=2s2mvbfY0UoSKkl6_Ol9wg&r=L7MB7eHT-UoCXD4iA3c7Sm3JrKXt7T1dG3NjBzCxm1c&m=jwg72GwxQbX1qNofe94rlCW9tHeCPXLavSkWToGTxv0&s=L5xCyWjXz-wJa5DougcLVpIPPWlTxh4NXwwzhsdokec&e=> ________________________________ If you are not an intended recipient of confidential and privileged information in this email, please delete it, notify us immediately at postmaster@gtlaw.com<mailto:postmaster@gtlaw.com>, and do not use or disseminate such information. -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.RRPproxy.net> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.BrandShelter.com> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.RRPproxy.net> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.BrandShelter.com> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.
Hi All, Happy Summer to All who are celebrating it. I am teaching my teenage son to drive which makes every other challenge of my life look minor! I've reviewed the email of the last few days and want to thank everyone for a candid and frankly exciting discussion. These are difficult issues, and frankly, there was nothing boring about the discussion taking place here! My only concern is that it is, in my personal opinion, untimely. We have yet to gather or review the data of the Sunrise Period questions. As the first group to review the Sunrise Period as a Consensus Policy, it seems to be very much within our ambit and duty to ask "is it fit for purpose?" "Is it being used?" "Is it being abused?" I believe all of these questions are part of the materials that Lori Schulman and the Sunrise Team have put before us. I see all of these questions - and some proposed answers -- in the email of the last few days. I also see some intriguing ideas for tweaks to the system that might a) eliminate existing problems and b) serve the same TM protection goals (thank you Volker). My only issue is that we have yet to fully understand the existing problems. That's the goal of the data gathering and the process of evaluation and discussion ahead, right? What seems to be the issue is whether Jeremy Malcolm's proposal to eliminate the Sunrise Period is valid. First, it was timely submitted so I see nothing procedurally that would remove it from consideration. Second, it seems pretty consistent with the larger evaluation taking place as we look at the TMCH Database generally, TM Claims, and Sunrise Period. We seem to be asking the same questions across all categories (which makes sense to me): is it fit for purpose, is it meeting that purpose, is it causing other unintended problems? In the end, what recommendations will be pass on to the GNSO Council, e.g., do we keep it, do we tweak it, do we expand it, do we remove it? do we reframe and revise it? And yes, where we stand on these issues depends on where we sit (not my original quote :-)). Thank you for the preview of the robust discussion ahead! IMHO, this is a discussion for a later date after our review of the Sunrise Period data, inputs and findings. Best, Kathy On 8/14/2017 4:25 PM, Michael Graham (ELCA) wrote:
While interesting, I believe Volker’s proposal would add an additional level of clerical requirements while at the same time providing an additional point of possible error and effort in the process.
Michael R.
*From:*gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Volker Greimann *Sent:* Monday, August 14, 2017 3:43 AM *To:* trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com; mike@rodenbaugh.com *Cc:* gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] 99%+ reduction in sunrise utilization rate per TLD supports EFF call for elimination of sunrise
That one is relatively easy. At this time, registries are already required to remove various lists of domains from the pool of available domains:
- domains blocked by ICANN
- domains blocked by policies or agreement (country names and abbreviations, etc)
- name collision matches
- for some geoTLDs: domains reverved by the government entity for their own use
- unpriced premium names
This proposal would simply add one further category of names that would be reserved for the general public, but open for registration by authorized entities. The TMCH would provide the list to the registry operators.
Best,
Volker
Am 11.08.2017 um 20:19 schrieb trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com <mailto:trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com>:
One other question. How do you propose removing the eligible sunrise domain names from the pool of available domain names? Would the TMCH provide a list of all unique marks registered to each registrar?
Best regards,
**
*Marc H. Trachtenberg* Shareholder Greenberg Traurig, LLP | 77 West Wacker Drive | Suite 3100 | Chicago, IL 60601 Tel 312.456.1020
Mobile 773.677.3305
trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com <mailto:trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com> | www.gtlaw.com <http://www.gtlaw.com/>
Greenberg Traurig
*From:*gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Mike Rodenbaugh *Sent:* Friday, August 11, 2017 1:13 PM *To:* Volker Greimann *Cc:* David A. Tait *Subject:* Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] 99%+ reduction in sunrise utilization rate per TLD supports EFF call for elimination of sunrise
I like Volker's idea at first glance. It seems at least worthy of exploration whether indeed it "would solve many of the existing issues." Volker could you provide a litte more depth to that -- what issues you think might be solved?
Thanks,
Mike
Mike Rodenbaugh
RODENBAUGH LAW
tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087
http://rodenbaugh.com <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__rodenbaugh.com&d=DwMFaQ&...>
On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 6:44 AM, Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>> wrote:
I will not dispute the effectiveness of Sunrise periods for rights holders, however there may be better options that provide just as much protection but have less impact on the release of a new TLD.
For example, sunrise could be run concurrently with the general launch of a TLD simply by removing the eligible sunrise domain names from the pool of available domain names. Rights holders could still use their TMCH-tokens to register these semi-reserved strings as domain names but the release of the TLD to the general public would not be held back. Other potential registrants would merely receive a notice that this string is reserved until date X due to claimed rights of third parties (which could double as an abbreviated claims notice), or even opt to queue their registration request until the reservation period is over.
This would actually solve many of the existing issues.
Best,
Volker
Am 11.08.2017 um 15:12 schrieb Nahitchevansky, Georges:
I was not going to engage in yet more back and forth on sunrise, but in reading your email, and those of several others, I feel compelled to say something on this by the numbers discussion. This type of metric driven approach is very much akin to driving down a road with blinders on either side. It's a tad pedantic and as we know from history these types of approaches (many times pushed by bureaucrats) can often lead to disastrous decisions (e.g. Soviet style five year plans). You need to look at the overall situation and what is going on, as opposed to just getting caught up in the numbers -- which after all can get sliced and diced any number of ways. The reality is that brand owners are using sunrise to protect their brands in the key extensions that relate to their businesses. The numbers may not be huge per se, but the new gTLD program has pretty much, by all accounts, not been the success that ICANN had hoped for. Moreover, we all know that the success of the extensions has been quite uneven. Some are barely breaking even, some have been a great success, others have failed and yet others have only experienced lackluster results. What all of this means is that some extensions are simply not worth registering in.
That being said, sunrise does have an important value. If there are up to 100,000 plus registrations based on bona fide brands, and some on the most valuable brands in the world, then the system is working as it is preventing a significant amount of cybersquatting . If we go by he metrics you love, then it is not rocket science to figure out that a landrush approach is going to lead to a large spike of abuse (as we have seen in the past in no sunrise situations). This in turn leads to significant costs of investigating and pursuing infringements, all of which ultimately leads to more costs to consumers and loss of faith in the integrity of the system -- particularly if consumers get tricked or defrauded by a domain name that appears to be related to a brand (e.g., Gucci.shoes) and which could have been registered during a sunrise period.
So while I understand that brand owners are not making sunrise registrations across 1000 plus extensions, the point is that they are generally picking the most logical extensions and are not abusing the sunrise system. So whether the number is one percent or less or ten percent, that number doesn't really tell the story. 100,000 plus sunrise registrations prevents a ton of abuse, which benefits everyone in the end. The numbers only approach really misses the mark. It's like saying that if a disease affects less that 1% of the world population, we should not waste money on finding a cure for it and stop all funding on such research (even though the costs of treating the disease for the less than 1% will be staggeringly high).
So in closing, I again urge you to concentrate on trying to find a fix to address the limited speculator issue as opposed to beating a dead horse on the sunrise issue.
Original Message From: George Kirikos Sent: Friday, August 11, 2017 12:22 AM To: gnso-rpm-wg Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] 99%+ reduction in sunrise utilization rate per TLD supports EFF call for elimination of sunrise
Hello,
On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 11:21 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote:
I don't see the math that created your "talking point" of a "99%+ reduction in sunrise." Can you show your work please?
The post at:
http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2017-August/002321.html <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__mm.icann.org_pipermail_g...>
showed numerous sunrise statistics, ranging from 15,000 on the low end for .mobi (.co was slightly lower, although that's a ccTLD, not a TLD that ICANN is involved with in any way), 32,000 for .asia, 80,000 for .biz/.xxx, and who knows what it was for .info?
Even taking the lowest of those (15,000) as the base, 130 (average new gTLD sunrise from The Analysis Group report) divided by 15,000 = 0.0087 = 0.87%, which is less than 1%, i.e. a 99%+ reduction. Of course, if one chose a higher base (.asia, .xxx, .biz, .etc.), or an average of those other sunrises, the reduction is even greater than if one had used the lowest sunrise (from .mobi).
As for your other statement:
We can't expect Sunrise registrations to outperform the New gTLD Program generally."
While the new gTLD program has been a disaster, it hasn't been an underperformance of 99%+ of expectations (perhaps more like 80% to 90% underperformance). Thus, while it's obvious that both have been failures, sunrise usage is an even greater failure than new gTLDs overall. So, even on that relative scale, the sunrise period should be eliminated.
Since I know you'll ask "George, why do you say there's been an 80% or 90% underpeformance for new gTLDs?" let me answer that now to save time. I'll use as my reference (besides the obvious general observations of most informed observers) ICANN's own stats:
http://domainincite.com/18857-new-gtld-sales-miss-icann-estimates-by-a-mile <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__domainincite.com_18857-2...>
where the numbers came in at just 18% of ICANN's original 2014 expectations. For the math-challenged, 100% - 18% = 82% as the level of underperformance.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 <tel:416-588-0269> http://www.leap.com/ <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.leap.com_&d=DwMFaQ&c...> _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...>
________________________________
Confidentiality Notice: This communication constitutes an electronic communication within the meaning of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 2510, and its disclosure is strictly limited to the recipient intended by the sender of this message. This transmission, and any attachments, may contain confidential attorney-client privileged information and attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. Please contact us immediately by return e-mail or at 404 815 6500 <tel:404%20815%206500>, and destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading or saving in any manner.
________________________________
***DISCLAIMER*** Per Treasury Department Circular 230: Any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein. _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...>
-- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung.
Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung -
Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 <tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20901> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 <tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20851> Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>
Web: www.key-systems.net <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.key-2Dsystems.net&d=...> / www.RRPproxy.net <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.RRPproxy.net&d=DwMFa...> www.domaindiscount24.com <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.domaindiscount24.com...> / www.BrandShelter.com <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.BrandShelter.com&d=D...>
Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.facebook.com_KeySyst...> www.twitter.com/key_systems <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.twitter.com_key-5Fsy...>
Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.keydrive.lu&d=DwMFaQ...>
Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen.
--------------------------------------------
Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Best regards,
Volker A. Greimann - legal department -
Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 <tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20901> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 <tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20851> Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>
Web: www.key-systems.net <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.key-2Dsystems.net&d=...> / www.RRPproxy.net <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.RRPproxy.net&d=DwMFa...> www.domaindiscount24.com <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.domaindiscount24.com...> / www.BrandShelter.com <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.BrandShelter.com&d=D...>
Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.facebook.com_KeySyst...> www.twitter.com/key_systems <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.twitter.com_key-5Fsy...>
CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.keydrive.lu&d=DwMFaQ...>
This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.
_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you are not an intended recipient of confidential and privileged information in this email, please delete it, notify us immediately at postmaster@gtlaw.com <mailto:postmaster@gtlaw.com>, and do not use or disseminate such information.
-- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email:vgreimann@key-systems.net <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web:www.key-systems.net <http://www.key-systems.net> /www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.RRPproxy.net> www.domaindiscount24.com <http://www.domaindiscount24.com> /www.BrandShelter.com <http://www.BrandShelter.com> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems <http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems <http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu <http://www.keydrive.lu> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email:vgreimann@key-systems.net <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web:www.key-systems.net <http://www.key-systems.net> /www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.RRPproxy.net> www.domaindiscount24.com <http://www.domaindiscount24.com> /www.BrandShelter.com <http://www.BrandShelter.com> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems <http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems <http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu <http://www.keydrive.lu> This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.
_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
Kathy, Can you confirm whether this entire email is sent as your person opinion, or if any portion of it represents your views as a Co-Chair or a view of the Co-Chairs? It's clear that your statement that the only concern about the discussion on this email thread is that it is untimely is your personal opinion. Thanks for that. It's not clear whether the other statements are also your personal opinion, a view in the Co-Chair role, or a view of the Co-Chairs. A clarification would be much appreciated. Good luck with the driving lessons! I have so far avoided that challenge -- perhaps because driving in New York City has struck fear into the hearts of my driving-age children. Just don't hold on to the dashboard so hard you leave handprints.... Thanks! Greg On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 10:30 AM, Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com> wrote:
Hi All,
Happy Summer to All who are celebrating it. I am teaching my teenage son to drive which makes every other challenge of my life look minor! I've reviewed the email of the last few days and want to thank everyone for a candid and frankly exciting discussion. These are difficult issues, and frankly, there was nothing boring about the discussion taking place here!
My only concern is that it is, in my personal opinion, untimely. We have yet to gather or review the data of the Sunrise Period questions. As the first group to review the Sunrise Period as a Consensus Policy, it seems to be very much within our ambit and duty to ask "is it fit for purpose?" "Is it being used?" "Is it being abused?" I believe all of these questions are part of the materials that Lori Schulman and the Sunrise Team have put before us. I see all of these questions - and some proposed answers -- in the email of the last few days.
I also see some intriguing ideas for tweaks to the system that might a) eliminate existing problems and b) serve the same TM protection goals (thank you Volker). My only issue is that we have yet to fully understand the existing problems. That's the goal of the data gathering and the process of evaluation and discussion ahead, right?
What seems to be the issue is whether Jeremy Malcolm's proposal to eliminate the Sunrise Period is valid. First, it was timely submitted so I see nothing procedurally that would remove it from consideration. Second, it seems pretty consistent with the larger evaluation taking place as we look at the TMCH Database generally, TM Claims, and Sunrise Period. We seem to be asking the same questions across all categories (which makes sense to me): is it fit for purpose, is it meeting that purpose, is it causing other unintended problems? In the end, what recommendations will be pass on to the GNSO Council, e.g., do we keep it, do we tweak it, do we expand it, do we remove it? do we reframe and revise it?
And yes, where we stand on these issues depends on where we sit (not my original quote :-)). Thank you for the preview of the robust discussion ahead! IMHO, this is a discussion for a later date after our review of the Sunrise Period data, inputs and findings.
Best, Kathy
On 8/14/2017 4:25 PM, Michael Graham (ELCA) wrote:
While interesting, I believe Volker’s proposal would add an additional level of clerical requirements while at the same time providing an additional point of possible error and effort in the process.
Michael R.
*From:* gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@ icann.org <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Volker Greimann *Sent:* Monday, August 14, 2017 3:43 AM *To:* trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com; mike@rodenbaugh.com *Cc:* gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] 99%+ reduction in sunrise utilization rate per TLD supports EFF call for elimination of sunrise
That one is relatively easy. At this time, registries are already required to remove various lists of domains from the pool of available domains:
- domains blocked by ICANN
- domains blocked by policies or agreement (country names and abbreviations, etc)
- name collision matches
- for some geoTLDs: domains reverved by the government entity for their own use
- unpriced premium names
This proposal would simply add one further category of names that would be reserved for the general public, but open for registration by authorized entities. The TMCH would provide the list to the registry operators.
Best,
Volker
Am 11.08.2017 um 20:19 schrieb trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com:
One other question. How do you propose removing the eligible sunrise domain names from the pool of available domain names? Would the TMCH provide a list of all unique marks registered to each registrar?
Best regards,
*Marc H. Trachtenberg* Shareholder Greenberg Traurig, LLP | 77 West Wacker Drive | Suite 3100 | Chicago, IL 60601 Tel 312.456.1020 <(312)%20456-1020>
Mobile 773.677.3305 <(773)%20677-3305>
trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com | www.gtlaw.com
[image: Greenberg Traurig]
*From:* gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@ icann.org <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Mike Rodenbaugh *Sent:* Friday, August 11, 2017 1:13 PM *To:* Volker Greimann *Cc:* David A. Tait *Subject:* Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] 99%+ reduction in sunrise utilization rate per TLD supports EFF call for elimination of sunrise
I like Volker's idea at first glance. It seems at least worthy of exploration whether indeed it "would solve many of the existing issues." Volker could you provide a litte more depth to that -- what issues you think might be solved?
Thanks,
Mike
Mike Rodenbaugh
RODENBAUGH LAW
tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 <(415)%20738-8087>
http://rodenbaugh.com <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__rodenbaugh.com&d=DwMFaQ&...>
On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 6:44 AM, Volker Greimann < vgreimann@key-systems.net> wrote:
I will not dispute the effectiveness of Sunrise periods for rights holders, however there may be better options that provide just as much protection but have less impact on the release of a new TLD.
For example, sunrise could be run concurrently with the general launch of a TLD simply by removing the eligible sunrise domain names from the pool of available domain names. Rights holders could still use their TMCH-tokens to register these semi-reserved strings as domain names but the release of the TLD to the general public would not be held back. Other potential registrants would merely receive a notice that this string is reserved until date X due to claimed rights of third parties (which could double as an abbreviated claims notice), or even opt to queue their registration request until the reservation period is over.
This would actually solve many of the existing issues.
Best,
Volker
Am 11.08.2017 um 15:12 schrieb Nahitchevansky, Georges:
I was not going to engage in yet more back and forth on sunrise, but in reading your email, and those of several others, I feel compelled to say something on this by the numbers discussion. This type of metric driven approach is very much akin to driving down a road with blinders on either side. It's a tad pedantic and as we know from history these types of approaches (many times pushed by bureaucrats) can often lead to disastrous decisions (e.g. Soviet style five year plans). You need to look at the overall situation and what is going on, as opposed to just getting caught up in the numbers -- which after all can get sliced and diced any number of ways. The reality is that brand owners are using sunrise to protect their brands in the key extensions that relate to their businesses. The numbers may not be huge per se, but the new gTLD program has pretty much, by all accounts, not been the success that ICANN had hoped for. Moreover, we all know that the success of the extensions has been quite uneven. Some are barely breaking even, some have been a great success, others have failed and yet others have only experienced lackluster results. What all of this means is that some extensions are simply not worth registering in.
That being said, sunrise does have an important value. If there are up to 100,000 plus registrations based on bona fide brands, and some on the most valuable brands in the world, then the system is working as it is preventing a significant amount of cybersquatting . If we go by he metrics you love, then it is not rocket science to figure out that a landrush approach is going to lead to a large spike of abuse (as we have seen in the past in no sunrise situations). This in turn leads to significant costs of investigating and pursuing infringements, all of which ultimately leads to more costs to consumers and loss of faith in the integrity of the system -- particularly if consumers get tricked or defrauded by a domain name that appears to be related to a brand (e.g., Gucci.shoes) and which could have been registered during a sunrise period.
So while I understand that brand owners are not making sunrise registrations across 1000 plus extensions, the point is that they are generally picking the most logical extensions and are not abusing the sunrise system. So whether the number is one percent or less or ten percent, that number doesn't really tell the story. 100,000 plus sunrise registrations prevents a ton of abuse, which benefits everyone in the end. The numbers only approach really misses the mark. It's like saying that if a disease affects less that 1% of the world population, we should not waste money on finding a cure for it and stop all funding on such research (even though the costs of treating the disease for the less than 1% will be staggeringly high).
So in closing, I again urge you to concentrate on trying to find a fix to address the limited speculator issue as opposed to beating a dead horse on the sunrise issue.
Original Message From: George Kirikos Sent: Friday, August 11, 2017 12:22 AM To: gnso-rpm-wg Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] 99%+ reduction in sunrise utilization rate per TLD supports EFF call for elimination of sunrise
Hello,
On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 11:21 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
I don't see the math that created your "talking point" of a "99%+ reduction in sunrise." Can you show your work please?
The post at:
http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2017-August/002321.html <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__mm.icann.org_pipermail_g...>
showed numerous sunrise statistics, ranging from 15,000 on the low end for .mobi (.co was slightly lower, although that's a ccTLD, not a TLD that ICANN is involved with in any way), 32,000 for .asia, 80,000 for .biz/.xxx, and who knows what it was for .info?
Even taking the lowest of those (15,000) as the base, 130 (average new gTLD sunrise from The Analysis Group report) divided by 15,000 = 0.0087 = 0.87%, which is less than 1%, i.e. a 99%+ reduction. Of course, if one chose a higher base (.asia, .xxx, .biz, .etc.), or an average of those other sunrises, the reduction is even greater than if one had used the lowest sunrise (from .mobi).
As for your other statement:
We can't expect Sunrise registrations to outperform the New gTLD Program generally."
While the new gTLD program has been a disaster, it hasn't been an underperformance of 99%+ of expectations (perhaps more like 80% to 90% underperformance). Thus, while it's obvious that both have been failures, sunrise usage is an even greater failure than new gTLDs overall. So, even on that relative scale, the sunrise period should be eliminated.
Since I know you'll ask "George, why do you say there's been an 80% or 90% underpeformance for new gTLDs?" let me answer that now to save time. I'll use as my reference (besides the obvious general observations of most informed observers) ICANN's own stats:
http://domainincite.com/18857-new-gtld-sales-miss-icann- estimates-by-a-mile <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__domainincite.com_18857-2...>
where the numbers came in at just 18% of ICANN's original 2014 expectations. For the math-challenged, 100% - 18% = 82% as the level of underperformance.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.leap.com_&d=DwMFaQ&c...> _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...>
________________________________
Confidentiality Notice: This communication constitutes an electronic communication within the meaning of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 2510, and its disclosure is strictly limited to the recipient intended by the sender of this message. This transmission, and any attachments, may contain confidential attorney-client privileged information and attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. Please contact us immediately by return e-mail or at 404 815 6500, and destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading or saving in any manner.
________________________________
***DISCLAIMER*** Per Treasury Department Circular 230: Any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein. _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...>
-- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung.
Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung -
Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net
Web: www.key-systems.net <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.key-2Dsystems.net&d=...> / www.RRPproxy.net <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.RRPproxy.net&d=DwMFa...> www.domaindiscount24.com <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.domaindiscount24.com...> / www.BrandShelter.com <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.BrandShelter.com&d=D...>
Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.facebook.com_KeySyst...> www.twitter.com/key_systems <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.twitter.com_key-5Fsy...>
Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.keydrive.lu&d=DwMFaQ...>
Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen.
--------------------------------------------
Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Best regards,
Volker A. Greimann - legal department -
Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net
Web: www.key-systems.net <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.key-2Dsystems.net&d=...> / www.RRPproxy.net <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.RRPproxy.net&d=DwMFa...> www.domaindiscount24.com <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.domaindiscount24.com...> / www.BrandShelter.com <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.BrandShelter.com&d=D...>
Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.facebook.com_KeySyst...> www.twitter.com/key_systems <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.twitter.com_key-5Fsy...>
CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.keydrive.lu&d=DwMFaQ...>
This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.
_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...>
------------------------------
If you are not an intended recipient of confidential and privileged information in this email, please delete it, notify us immediately at postmaster@gtlaw.com, and do not use or disseminate such information.
--
Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung.
Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
Volker A. Greimann
- Rechtsabteilung -
Key-Systems GmbH
Im Oberen Werk 1
66386 St. Ingbert
Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 <+49%206894%209396901>
Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 <+49%206894%209396851>
Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net
Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net
www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com
Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook:
www.facebook.com/KeySystems
www.twitter.com/key_systems
Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin
Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
www.keydrive.lu
Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen.
--------------------------------------------
Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Best regards,
Volker A. Greimann
- legal department -
Key-Systems GmbH
Im Oberen Werk 1
66386 St. Ingbert
Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 <+49%206894%209396901>
Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 <+49%206894%209396851>
Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net
Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net
www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com
Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated:
www.facebook.com/KeySystems
www.twitter.com/key_systems
CEO: Alexander Siffrin
Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
www.keydrive.lu
This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.
_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing listgnso-rpm-wg@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
In my personal capacity, Greg (assuming I survive the driving). Best, Kathy On 8/16/2017 11:18 AM, Greg Shatan wrote:
Kathy,
Can you confirm whether this entire email is sent as your person opinion, or if any portion of it represents your views as a Co-Chair or a view of the Co-Chairs?
It's clear that your statement that the only concern about the discussion on this email thread is that it is untimely is your personal opinion. Thanks for that.
It's not clear whether the other statements are also your personal opinion, a view in the Co-Chair role, or a view of the Co-Chairs. A clarification would be much appreciated.
Good luck with the driving lessons! I have so far avoided that challenge -- perhaps because driving in New York City has struck fear into the hearts of my driving-age children. Just don't hold on to the dashboard so hard you leave handprints....
Thanks!
Greg
On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 10:30 AM, Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com <mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>> wrote:
Hi All,
Happy Summer to All who are celebrating it. I am teaching my teenage son to drive which makes every other challenge of my life look minor! I've reviewed the email of the last few days and want to thank everyone for a candid and frankly exciting discussion. These are difficult issues, and frankly, there was nothing boring about the discussion taking place here!
My only concern is that it is, in my personal opinion, untimely. We have yet to gather or review the data of the Sunrise Period questions. As the first group to review the Sunrise Period as a Consensus Policy, it seems to be very much within our ambit and duty to ask "is it fit for purpose?" "Is it being used?" "Is it being abused?" I believe all of these questions are part of the materials that Lori Schulman and the Sunrise Team have put before us. I see all of these questions - and some proposed answers -- in the email of the last few days.
I also see some intriguing ideas for tweaks to the system that might a) eliminate existing problems and b) serve the same TM protection goals (thank you Volker). My only issue is that we have yet to fully understand the existing problems. That's the goal of the data gathering and the process of evaluation and discussion ahead, right?
What seems to be the issue is whether Jeremy Malcolm's proposal to eliminate the Sunrise Period is valid. First, it was timely submitted so I see nothing procedurally that would remove it from consideration. Second, it seems pretty consistent with the larger evaluation taking place as we look at the TMCH Database generally, TM Claims, and Sunrise Period. We seem to be asking the same questions across all categories (which makes sense to me): is it fit for purpose, is it meeting that purpose, is it causing other unintended problems? In the end, what recommendations will be pass on to the GNSO Council, e.g., do we keep it, do we tweak it, do we expand it, do we remove it? do we reframe and revise it?
And yes, where we stand on these issues depends on where we sit (not my original quote :-)). Thank you for the preview of the robust discussion ahead! IMHO, this is a discussion for a later date after our review of the Sunrise Period data, inputs and findings.
Best, Kathy
On 8/14/2017 4:25 PM, Michael Graham (ELCA) wrote:
While interesting, I believe Volker’s proposal would add an additional level of clerical requirements while at the same time providing an additional point of possible error and effort in the process.
Michael R.
*From:*gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Volker Greimann *Sent:* Monday, August 14, 2017 3:43 AM *To:* trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com <mailto:trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com>; mike@rodenbaugh.com <mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com> *Cc:* gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] 99%+ reduction in sunrise utilization rate per TLD supports EFF call for elimination of sunrise
That one is relatively easy. At this time, registries are already required to remove various lists of domains from the pool of available domains:
- domains blocked by ICANN
- domains blocked by policies or agreement (country names and abbreviations, etc)
- name collision matches
- for some geoTLDs: domains reverved by the government entity for their own use
- unpriced premium names
This proposal would simply add one further category of names that would be reserved for the general public, but open for registration by authorized entities. The TMCH would provide the list to the registry operators.
Best,
Volker
Am 11.08.2017 um 20:19 schrieb trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com <mailto:trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com>:
One other question. How do you propose removing the eligible sunrise domain names from the pool of available domain names? Would the TMCH provide a list of all unique marks registered to each registrar?
Best regards,
**
*Marc H. Trachtenberg* Shareholder Greenberg Traurig, LLP | 77 West Wacker Drive | Suite 3100 | Chicago, IL 60601 Tel 312.456.1020 <tel:%28312%29%20456-1020>
Mobile 773.677.3305 <tel:%28773%29%20677-3305>
trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com <mailto:trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com> | www.gtlaw.com <http://www.gtlaw.com/>
Greenberg Traurig
*From:*gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Mike Rodenbaugh *Sent:* Friday, August 11, 2017 1:13 PM *To:* Volker Greimann *Cc:* David A. Tait *Subject:* Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] 99%+ reduction in sunrise utilization rate per TLD supports EFF call for elimination of sunrise
I like Volker's idea at first glance. It seems at least worthy of exploration whether indeed it "would solve many of the existing issues." Volker could you provide a litte more depth to that -- what issues you think might be solved?
Thanks,
Mike
Mike Rodenbaugh
RODENBAUGH LAW
tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 <tel:%28415%29%20738-8087>
http://rodenbaugh.com <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__rodenbaugh.com&d=DwMFaQ&...>
On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 6:44 AM, Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>> wrote:
I will not dispute the effectiveness of Sunrise periods for rights holders, however there may be better options that provide just as much protection but have less impact on the release of a new TLD.
For example, sunrise could be run concurrently with the general launch of a TLD simply by removing the eligible sunrise domain names from the pool of available domain names. Rights holders could still use their TMCH-tokens to register these semi-reserved strings as domain names but the release of the TLD to the general public would not be held back. Other potential registrants would merely receive a notice that this string is reserved until date X due to claimed rights of third parties (which could double as an abbreviated claims notice), or even opt to queue their registration request until the reservation period is over.
This would actually solve many of the existing issues.
Best,
Volker
Am 11.08.2017 um 15:12 schrieb Nahitchevansky, Georges:
I was not going to engage in yet more back and forth on sunrise, but in reading your email, and those of several others, I feel compelled to say something on this by the numbers discussion. This type of metric driven approach is very much akin to driving down a road with blinders on either side. It's a tad pedantic and as we know from history these types of approaches (many times pushed by bureaucrats) can often lead to disastrous decisions (e.g. Soviet style five year plans). You need to look at the overall situation and what is going on, as opposed to just getting caught up in the numbers -- which after all can get sliced and diced any number of ways. The reality is that brand owners are using sunrise to protect their brands in the key extensions that relate to their businesses. The numbers may not be huge per se, but the new gTLD program has pretty much, by all accounts, not been the success that ICANN had hoped for. Moreover, we all know that the success of the extensions has been quite uneven. Some are barely breaking even, some have been a great success, others have failed and yet others have only experienced lackluster results. What all of this means is that some extensions are simply not worth registering in.
That being said, sunrise does have an important value. If there are up to 100,000 plus registrations based on bona fide brands, and some on the most valuable brands in the world, then the system is working as it is preventing a significant amount of cybersquatting . If we go by he metrics you love, then it is not rocket science to figure out that a landrush approach is going to lead to a large spike of abuse (as we have seen in the past in no sunrise situations). This in turn leads to significant costs of investigating and pursuing infringements, all of which ultimately leads to more costs to consumers and loss of faith in the integrity of the system -- particularly if consumers get tricked or defrauded by a domain name that appears to be related to a brand (e.g., Gucci.shoes) and which could have been registered during a sunrise period.
So while I understand that brand owners are not making sunrise registrations across 1000 plus extensions, the point is that they are generally picking the most logical extensions and are not abusing the sunrise system. So whether the number is one percent or less or ten percent, that number doesn't really tell the story. 100,000 plus sunrise registrations prevents a ton of abuse, which benefits everyone in the end. The numbers only approach really misses the mark. It's like saying that if a disease affects less that 1% of the world population, we should not waste money on finding a cure for it and stop all funding on such research (even though the costs of treating the disease for the less than 1% will be staggeringly high).
So in closing, I again urge you to concentrate on trying to find a fix to address the limited speculator issue as opposed to beating a dead horse on the sunrise issue.
Original Message From: George Kirikos Sent: Friday, August 11, 2017 12:22 AM To: gnso-rpm-wg Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] 99%+ reduction in sunrise utilization rate per TLD supports EFF call for elimination of sunrise
Hello,
On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 11:21 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote:
I don't see the math that created your "talking point" of a "99%+ reduction in sunrise." Can you show your work please?
The post at:
http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2017-August/002321.html <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__mm.icann.org_pipermail_g...>
showed numerous sunrise statistics, ranging from 15,000 on the low end for .mobi (.co was slightly lower, although that's a ccTLD, not a TLD that ICANN is involved with in any way), 32,000 for .asia, 80,000 for .biz/.xxx, and who knows what it was for .info?
Even taking the lowest of those (15,000) as the base, 130 (average new gTLD sunrise from The Analysis Group report) divided by 15,000 = 0.0087 = 0.87%, which is less than 1%, i.e. a 99%+ reduction. Of course, if one chose a higher base (.asia, .xxx, .biz, .etc.), or an average of those other sunrises, the reduction is even greater than if one had used the lowest sunrise (from .mobi).
As for your other statement:
We can't expect Sunrise registrations to outperform the New gTLD Program generally."
While the new gTLD program has been a disaster, it hasn't been an underperformance of 99%+ of expectations (perhaps more like 80% to 90% underperformance). Thus, while it's obvious that both have been failures, sunrise usage is an even greater failure than new gTLDs overall. So, even on that relative scale, the sunrise period should be eliminated.
Since I know you'll ask "George, why do you say there's been an 80% or 90% underpeformance for new gTLDs?" let me answer that now to save time. I'll use as my reference (besides the obvious general observations of most informed observers) ICANN's own stats:
http://domainincite.com/18857-new-gtld-sales-miss-icann-estimates-by-a-mile <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__domainincite.com_18857-2...>
where the numbers came in at just 18% of ICANN's original 2014 expectations. For the math-challenged, 100% - 18% = 82% as the level of underperformance.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 <tel:416-588-0269> http://www.leap.com/ <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.leap.com_&d=DwMFaQ&c...> _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...>
________________________________
Confidentiality Notice: This communication constitutes an electronic communication within the meaning of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 2510, and its disclosure is strictly limited to the recipient intended by the sender of this message. This transmission, and any attachments, may contain confidential attorney-client privileged information and attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. Please contact us immediately by return e-mail or at 404 815 6500 <tel:404%20815%206500>, and destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading or saving in any manner.
________________________________
***DISCLAIMER*** Per Treasury Department Circular 230: Any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein. _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...>
-- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung.
Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung -
Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 <tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20901> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 <tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20851> Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>
Web: www.key-systems.net <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.key-2Dsystems.net&d=...> / www.RRPproxy.net <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.RRPproxy.net&d=DwMFa...> www.domaindiscount24.com <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.domaindiscount24.com...> / www.BrandShelter.com <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.BrandShelter.com&d=D...>
Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.facebook.com_KeySyst...> www.twitter.com/key_systems <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.twitter.com_key-5Fsy...>
Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.keydrive.lu&d=DwMFaQ...>
Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen.
--------------------------------------------
Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Best regards,
Volker A. Greimann - legal department -
Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 <tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20901> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 <tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20851> Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>
Web: www.key-systems.net <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.key-2Dsystems.net&d=...> / www.RRPproxy.net <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.RRPproxy.net&d=DwMFa...> www.domaindiscount24.com <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.domaindiscount24.com...> / www.BrandShelter.com <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.BrandShelter.com&d=D...>
Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.facebook.com_KeySyst...> www.twitter.com/key_systems <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.twitter.com_key-5Fsy...>
CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.keydrive.lu&d=DwMFaQ...>
This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.
_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you are not an intended recipient of confidential and privileged information in this email, please delete it, notify us immediately at postmaster@gtlaw.com <mailto:postmaster@gtlaw.com>, and do not use or disseminate such information.
-- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung.
Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung -
Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.:+49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 <tel:+49%206894%209396901> Fax.:+49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 <tel:+49%206894%209396851> Email:vgreimann@key-systems.net <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>
Web:www.key-systems.net <http://www.key-systems.net> /www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.RRPproxy.net> www.domaindiscount24.com <http://www.domaindiscount24.com> /www.BrandShelter.com <http://www.BrandShelter.com>
Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems <http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems <http://www.twitter.com/key_systems>
Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu <http://www.keydrive.lu>
Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen.
--------------------------------------------
Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Best regards,
Volker A. Greimann - legal department -
Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.:+49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 <tel:+49%206894%209396901> Fax.:+49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 <tel:+49%206894%209396851> Email:vgreimann@key-systems.net <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>
Web:www.key-systems.net <http://www.key-systems.net> /www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.RRPproxy.net> www.domaindiscount24.com <http://www.domaindiscount24.com> /www.BrandShelter.com <http://www.BrandShelter.com>
Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems <http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems <http://www.twitter.com/key_systems>
CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu <http://www.keydrive.lu>
This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.
_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg>
_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg>
Thanks, and I hope that's a reasonable assumption!! For some driving instruction related entertainment, I highly recommend the Mike Leigh film "Happy-Go-Lucky." Greg On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 11:34 AM, Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com> wrote:
In my personal capacity, Greg (assuming I survive the driving).
Best, Kathy On 8/16/2017 11:18 AM, Greg Shatan wrote:
Kathy,
Can you confirm whether this entire email is sent as your person opinion, or if any portion of it represents your views as a Co-Chair or a view of the Co-Chairs?
It's clear that your statement that the only concern about the discussion on this email thread is that it is untimely is your personal opinion. Thanks for that.
It's not clear whether the other statements are also your personal opinion, a view in the Co-Chair role, or a view of the Co-Chairs. A clarification would be much appreciated.
Good luck with the driving lessons! I have so far avoided that challenge -- perhaps because driving in New York City has struck fear into the hearts of my driving-age children. Just don't hold on to the dashboard so hard you leave handprints....
Thanks!
Greg
On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 10:30 AM, Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com> wrote:
Hi All,
Happy Summer to All who are celebrating it. I am teaching my teenage son to drive which makes every other challenge of my life look minor! I've reviewed the email of the last few days and want to thank everyone for a candid and frankly exciting discussion. These are difficult issues, and frankly, there was nothing boring about the discussion taking place here!
My only concern is that it is, in my personal opinion, untimely. We have yet to gather or review the data of the Sunrise Period questions. As the first group to review the Sunrise Period as a Consensus Policy, it seems to be very much within our ambit and duty to ask "is it fit for purpose?" "Is it being used?" "Is it being abused?" I believe all of these questions are part of the materials that Lori Schulman and the Sunrise Team have put before us. I see all of these questions - and some proposed answers -- in the email of the last few days.
I also see some intriguing ideas for tweaks to the system that might a) eliminate existing problems and b) serve the same TM protection goals (thank you Volker). My only issue is that we have yet to fully understand the existing problems. That's the goal of the data gathering and the process of evaluation and discussion ahead, right?
What seems to be the issue is whether Jeremy Malcolm's proposal to eliminate the Sunrise Period is valid. First, it was timely submitted so I see nothing procedurally that would remove it from consideration. Second, it seems pretty consistent with the larger evaluation taking place as we look at the TMCH Database generally, TM Claims, and Sunrise Period. We seem to be asking the same questions across all categories (which makes sense to me): is it fit for purpose, is it meeting that purpose, is it causing other unintended problems? In the end, what recommendations will be pass on to the GNSO Council, e.g., do we keep it, do we tweak it, do we expand it, do we remove it? do we reframe and revise it?
And yes, where we stand on these issues depends on where we sit (not my original quote :-)). Thank you for the preview of the robust discussion ahead! IMHO, this is a discussion for a later date after our review of the Sunrise Period data, inputs and findings.
Best, Kathy
On 8/14/2017 4:25 PM, Michael Graham (ELCA) wrote:
While interesting, I believe Volker’s proposal would add an additional level of clerical requirements while at the same time providing an additional point of possible error and effort in the process.
Michael R.
*From:* gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@ic ann.org <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Volker Greimann *Sent:* Monday, August 14, 2017 3:43 AM *To:* trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com; mike@rodenbaugh.com *Cc:* gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] 99%+ reduction in sunrise utilization rate per TLD supports EFF call for elimination of sunrise
That one is relatively easy. At this time, registries are already required to remove various lists of domains from the pool of available domains:
- domains blocked by ICANN
- domains blocked by policies or agreement (country names and abbreviations, etc)
- name collision matches
- for some geoTLDs: domains reverved by the government entity for their own use
- unpriced premium names
This proposal would simply add one further category of names that would be reserved for the general public, but open for registration by authorized entities. The TMCH would provide the list to the registry operators.
Best,
Volker
Am 11.08.2017 um 20:19 schrieb trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com:
One other question. How do you propose removing the eligible sunrise domain names from the pool of available domain names? Would the TMCH provide a list of all unique marks registered to each registrar?
Best regards,
*Marc H. Trachtenberg* Shareholder Greenberg Traurig, LLP | 77 West Wacker Drive | Suite 3100 | Chicago, IL 60601 Tel 312.456.1020 <%28312%29%20456-1020>
Mobile 773.677.3305 <%28773%29%20677-3305>
trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com | www.gtlaw.com
[image: Greenberg Traurig]
*From:* gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@ic ann.org <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Mike Rodenbaugh *Sent:* Friday, August 11, 2017 1:13 PM *To:* Volker Greimann *Cc:* David A. Tait *Subject:* Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] 99%+ reduction in sunrise utilization rate per TLD supports EFF call for elimination of sunrise
I like Volker's idea at first glance. It seems at least worthy of exploration whether indeed it "would solve many of the existing issues." Volker could you provide a litte more depth to that -- what issues you think might be solved?
Thanks,
Mike
Mike Rodenbaugh
RODENBAUGH LAW
tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 <%28415%29%20738-8087>
http://rodenbaugh.com <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__rodenbaugh.com&d=DwMFaQ&...>
On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 6:44 AM, Volker Greimann < vgreimann@key-systems.net> wrote:
I will not dispute the effectiveness of Sunrise periods for rights holders, however there may be better options that provide just as much protection but have less impact on the release of a new TLD.
For example, sunrise could be run concurrently with the general launch of a TLD simply by removing the eligible sunrise domain names from the pool of available domain names. Rights holders could still use their TMCH-tokens to register these semi-reserved strings as domain names but the release of the TLD to the general public would not be held back. Other potential registrants would merely receive a notice that this string is reserved until date X due to claimed rights of third parties (which could double as an abbreviated claims notice), or even opt to queue their registration request until the reservation period is over.
This would actually solve many of the existing issues.
Best,
Volker
Am 11.08.2017 um 15:12 schrieb Nahitchevansky, Georges:
I was not going to engage in yet more back and forth on sunrise, but in reading your email, and those of several others, I feel compelled to say something on this by the numbers discussion. This type of metric driven approach is very much akin to driving down a road with blinders on either side. It's a tad pedantic and as we know from history these types of approaches (many times pushed by bureaucrats) can often lead to disastrous decisions (e.g. Soviet style five year plans). You need to look at the overall situation and what is going on, as opposed to just getting caught up in the numbers -- which after all can get sliced and diced any number of ways. The reality is that brand owners are using sunrise to protect their brands in the key extensions that relate to their businesses. The numbers may not be huge per se, but the new gTLD program has pretty much, by all accounts, not been the success that ICANN had hoped for. Moreover, we all know that the success of the extensions has been quite uneven. Some are barely breaking even, some have been a great success, others have failed and yet others have only experienced lackluster results. What all of this means is that some extensions are simply not worth registering in.
That being said, sunrise does have an important value. If there are up to 100,000 plus registrations based on bona fide brands, and some on the most valuable brands in the world, then the system is working as it is preventing a significant amount of cybersquatting . If we go by he metrics you love, then it is not rocket science to figure out that a landrush approach is going to lead to a large spike of abuse (as we have seen in the past in no sunrise situations). This in turn leads to significant costs of investigating and pursuing infringements, all of which ultimately leads to more costs to consumers and loss of faith in the integrity of the system -- particularly if consumers get tricked or defrauded by a domain name that appears to be related to a brand (e.g., Gucci.shoes) and which could have been registered during a sunrise period.
So while I understand that brand owners are not making sunrise registrations across 1000 plus extensions, the point is that they are generally picking the most logical extensions and are not abusing the sunrise system. So whether the number is one percent or less or ten percent, that number doesn't really tell the story. 100,000 plus sunrise registrations prevents a ton of abuse, which benefits everyone in the end. The numbers only approach really misses the mark. It's like saying that if a disease affects less that 1% of the world population, we should not waste money on finding a cure for it and stop all funding on such research (even though the costs of treating the disease for the less than 1% will be staggeringly high).
So in closing, I again urge you to concentrate on trying to find a fix to address the limited speculator issue as opposed to beating a dead horse on the sunrise issue.
Original Message From: George Kirikos Sent: Friday, August 11, 2017 12:22 AM To: gnso-rpm-wg Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] 99%+ reduction in sunrise utilization rate per TLD supports EFF call for elimination of sunrise
Hello,
On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 11:21 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
I don't see the math that created your "talking point" of a "99%+ reduction in sunrise." Can you show your work please?
The post at:
http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2017-August/002321.html <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__mm.icann.org_pipermail_g...>
showed numerous sunrise statistics, ranging from 15,000 on the low end for .mobi (.co was slightly lower, although that's a ccTLD, not a TLD that ICANN is involved with in any way), 32,000 for .asia, 80,000 for .biz/.xxx, and who knows what it was for .info?
Even taking the lowest of those (15,000) as the base, 130 (average new gTLD sunrise from The Analysis Group report) divided by 15,000 = 0.0087 = 0.87%, which is less than 1%, i.e. a 99%+ reduction. Of course, if one chose a higher base (.asia, .xxx, .biz, .etc.), or an average of those other sunrises, the reduction is even greater than if one had used the lowest sunrise (from .mobi).
As for your other statement:
We can't expect Sunrise registrations to outperform the New gTLD Program generally."
While the new gTLD program has been a disaster, it hasn't been an underperformance of 99%+ of expectations (perhaps more like 80% to 90% underperformance). Thus, while it's obvious that both have been failures, sunrise usage is an even greater failure than new gTLDs overall. So, even on that relative scale, the sunrise period should be eliminated.
Since I know you'll ask "George, why do you say there's been an 80% or 90% underpeformance for new gTLDs?" let me answer that now to save time. I'll use as my reference (besides the obvious general observations of most informed observers) ICANN's own stats:
http://domainincite.com/18857-new-gtld-sales-miss-icann-esti mates-by-a-mile <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__domainincite.com_18857-2...>
where the numbers came in at just 18% of ICANN's original 2014 expectations. For the math-challenged, 100% - 18% = 82% as the level of underperformance.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.leap.com_&d=DwMFaQ&c...> _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...>
________________________________
Confidentiality Notice: This communication constitutes an electronic communication within the meaning of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 2510, and its disclosure is strictly limited to the recipient intended by the sender of this message. This transmission, and any attachments, may contain confidential attorney-client privileged information and attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. Please contact us immediately by return e-mail or at 404 815 6500, and destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading or saving in any manner.
________________________________
***DISCLAIMER*** Per Treasury Department Circular 230: Any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein. _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...>
-- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung.
Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung -
Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net
Web: www.key-systems.net <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.key-2Dsystems.net&d=...> / www.RRPproxy.net <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.RRPproxy.net&d=DwMFa...> www.domaindiscount24.com <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.domaindiscount24.com...> / www.BrandShelter.com <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.BrandShelter.com&d=D...>
Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.facebook.com_KeySyst...> www.twitter.com/key_systems <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.twitter.com_key-5Fsy...>
Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.keydrive.lu&d=DwMFaQ...>
Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen.
--------------------------------------------
Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Best regards,
Volker A. Greimann - legal department -
Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net
Web: www.key-systems.net <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.key-2Dsystems.net&d=...> / www.RRPproxy.net <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.RRPproxy.net&d=DwMFa...> www.domaindiscount24.com <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.domaindiscount24.com...> / www.BrandShelter.com <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.BrandShelter.com&d=D...>
Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.facebook.com_KeySyst...> www.twitter.com/key_systems <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.twitter.com_key-5Fsy...>
CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.keydrive.lu&d=DwMFaQ...>
This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.
_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...>
------------------------------
If you are not an intended recipient of confidential and privileged information in this email, please delete it, notify us immediately at postmaster@gtlaw.com, and do not use or disseminate such information.
--
Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung.
Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
Volker A. Greimann
- Rechtsabteilung -
Key-Systems GmbH
Im Oberen Werk 1
66386 St. Ingbert
Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 <+49%206894%209396901>
Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 <+49%206894%209396851>
Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net
Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net
www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com
Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook:
www.facebook.com/KeySystems
www.twitter.com/key_systems
Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin
Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
www.keydrive.lu
Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen.
--------------------------------------------
Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Best regards,
Volker A. Greimann
- legal department -
Key-Systems GmbH
Im Oberen Werk 1
66386 St. Ingbert
Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 <+49%206894%209396901>
Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 <+49%206894%209396851>
Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net
Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net
www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com
Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated:
www.facebook.com/KeySystems
www.twitter.com/key_systems
CEO: Alexander Siffrin
Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
www.keydrive.lu
This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.
_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing listgnso-rpm-wg@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
Dear All, We did discuss what should be included in at least 2 meetings of the full working group if I recall correctly. The group decided to proceed with the suggestions as proposed by the Sunrise sub team with some additions. I think it should be up to the entire working group if additional sources are to be added. Speaking in my capacity as chair of the subteam, at this point, given all of the opportunities for input, I am not sure that I would support opening up this question again or we will have more delays. We need to be able to move on to the task of actually reviewing the RPMs. As for any open proposals, I support the idea that no proposals even if submitted now should be decided or even debated until we have fully assessed the impact of the RPMs and we are a long way from that. Right now, I think it is fair to assume the status quo until the working group determines that the status quo is not effective as long as that determination is supported by facts and reasoned arguments. Fully agree that we should be keeping open minds. Data collection is important but must be reasonable and tied to the task and, to your point, not assume answers. I don’t want to see this group get bogged down in data collection to the detriment of actually answering the questions. As I recently learned, a lot of the data that we think we need may not be kept in a form that is easy to collect nor related to the realities of business operations. I would posit that any proposals are premature, even if allowed until the rules, until we have reached consensus on whether an RPM is fulling its intended purpose and whether it should remain “as is”, be improved, or discarded. Lori Lori S. Schulman Senior Director, Internet Policy International Trademark Association (INTA) +1-202-704-0408, Skype: lsschulman From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2017 11:41 AM To: Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com> Cc: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] 99%+ reduction in sunrise utilization rate per TLD supports EFF call for elimination of sunrise Thanks, and I hope that's a reasonable assumption!! For some driving instruction related entertainment, I highly recommend the Mike Leigh film "Happy-Go-Lucky." Greg On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 11:34 AM, Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>> wrote: In my personal capacity, Greg (assuming I survive the driving). Best, Kathy On 8/16/2017 11:18 AM, Greg Shatan wrote: Kathy, Can you confirm whether this entire email is sent as your person opinion, or if any portion of it represents your views as a Co-Chair or a view of the Co-Chairs? It's clear that your statement that the only concern about the discussion on this email thread is that it is untimely is your personal opinion. Thanks for that. It's not clear whether the other statements are also your personal opinion, a view in the Co-Chair role, or a view of the Co-Chairs. A clarification would be much appreciated. Good luck with the driving lessons! I have so far avoided that challenge -- perhaps because driving in New York City has struck fear into the hearts of my driving-age children. Just don't hold on to the dashboard so hard you leave handprints.... Thanks! Greg On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 10:30 AM, Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>> wrote: Hi All, Happy Summer to All who are celebrating it. I am teaching my teenage son to drive which makes every other challenge of my life look minor! I've reviewed the email of the last few days and want to thank everyone for a candid and frankly exciting discussion. These are difficult issues, and frankly, there was nothing boring about the discussion taking place here! My only concern is that it is, in my personal opinion, untimely. We have yet to gather or review the data of the Sunrise Period questions. As the first group to review the Sunrise Period as a Consensus Policy, it seems to be very much within our ambit and duty to ask "is it fit for purpose?" "Is it being used?" "Is it being abused?" I believe all of these questions are part of the materials that Lori Schulman and the Sunrise Team have put before us. I see all of these questions - and some proposed answers -- in the email of the last few days. I also see some intriguing ideas for tweaks to the system that might a) eliminate existing problems and b) serve the same TM protection goals (thank you Volker). My only issue is that we have yet to fully understand the existing problems. That's the goal of the data gathering and the process of evaluation and discussion ahead, right? What seems to be the issue is whether Jeremy Malcolm's proposal to eliminate the Sunrise Period is valid. First, it was timely submitted so I see nothing procedurally that would remove it from consideration. Second, it seems pretty consistent with the larger evaluation taking place as we look at the TMCH Database generally, TM Claims, and Sunrise Period. We seem to be asking the same questions across all categories (which makes sense to me): is it fit for purpose, is it meeting that purpose, is it causing other unintended problems? In the end, what recommendations will be pass on to the GNSO Council, e.g., do we keep it, do we tweak it, do we expand it, do we remove it? do we reframe and revise it? And yes, where we stand on these issues depends on where we sit (not my original quote :-)). Thank you for the preview of the robust discussion ahead! IMHO, this is a discussion for a later date after our review of the Sunrise Period data, inputs and findings. Best, Kathy On 8/14/2017 4:25 PM, Michael Graham (ELCA) wrote: While interesting, I believe Volker’s proposal would add an additional level of clerical requirements while at the same time providing an additional point of possible error and effort in the process. Michael R. From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Volker Greimann Sent: Monday, August 14, 2017 3:43 AM To: trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com<mailto:trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com>; mike@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com> Cc: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] 99%+ reduction in sunrise utilization rate per TLD supports EFF call for elimination of sunrise That one is relatively easy. At this time, registries are already required to remove various lists of domains from the pool of available domains: - domains blocked by ICANN - domains blocked by policies or agreement (country names and abbreviations, etc) - name collision matches - for some geoTLDs: domains reverved by the government entity for their own use - unpriced premium names This proposal would simply add one further category of names that would be reserved for the general public, but open for registration by authorized entities. The TMCH would provide the list to the registry operators. Best, Volker Am 11.08.2017 um 20:19 schrieb trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com<mailto:trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com>: One other question. How do you propose removing the eligible sunrise domain names from the pool of available domain names? Would the TMCH provide a list of all unique marks registered to each registrar? Best regards, Marc H. Trachtenberg Shareholder Greenberg Traurig, LLP | 77 West Wacker Drive | Suite 3100 | Chicago, IL 60601 Tel 312.456.1020<tel:%28312%29%20456-1020> Mobile 773.677.3305<tel:%28773%29%20677-3305> trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com<mailto:trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com> | www.gtlaw.com<http://www.gtlaw.com/> [Greenberg Traurig] From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh Sent: Friday, August 11, 2017 1:13 PM To: Volker Greimann Cc: David A. Tait Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] 99%+ reduction in sunrise utilization rate per TLD supports EFF call for elimination of sunrise I like Volker's idea at first glance. It seems at least worthy of exploration whether indeed it "would solve many of the existing issues." Volker could you provide a litte more depth to that -- what issues you think might be solved? Thanks, Mike Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087<tel:%28415%29%20738-8087> http://rodenbaugh.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__rodenbaugh.com&d=DwMFaQ&c=2s2mvbfY0UoSKkl6_Ol9wg&r=L7MB7eHT-UoCXD4iA3c7Sm3JrKXt7T1dG3NjBzCxm1c&m=jwg72GwxQbX1qNofe94rlCW9tHeCPXLavSkWToGTxv0&s=0UbQGByGsiXMTHxa2peJUr-Vj9B26hhK3Ykh2kbLRZE&e=> On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 6:44 AM, Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>> wrote: I will not dispute the effectiveness of Sunrise periods for rights holders, however there may be better options that provide just as much protection but have less impact on the release of a new TLD. For example, sunrise could be run concurrently with the general launch of a TLD simply by removing the eligible sunrise domain names from the pool of available domain names. Rights holders could still use their TMCH-tokens to register these semi-reserved strings as domain names but the release of the TLD to the general public would not be held back. Other potential registrants would merely receive a notice that this string is reserved until date X due to claimed rights of third parties (which could double as an abbreviated claims notice), or even opt to queue their registration request until the reservation period is over. This would actually solve many of the existing issues. Best, Volker Am 11.08.2017 um 15:12 schrieb Nahitchevansky, Georges: I was not going to engage in yet more back and forth on sunrise, but in reading your email, and those of several others, I feel compelled to say something on this by the numbers discussion. This type of metric driven approach is very much akin to driving down a road with blinders on either side. It's a tad pedantic and as we know from history these types of approaches (many times pushed by bureaucrats) can often lead to disastrous decisions (e.g. Soviet style five year plans). You need to look at the overall situation and what is going on, as opposed to just getting caught up in the numbers -- which after all can get sliced and diced any number of ways. The reality is that brand owners are using sunrise to protect their brands in the key extensions that relate to their businesses. The numbers may not be huge per se, but the new gTLD program has pretty much, by all accounts, not been the success that ICANN had hoped for. Moreover, we all know that the success of the extensions has been quite uneven. Some are barely breaking even, some have been a great success, others have failed and yet others have only experienced lackluster results. What all of this means is that some extensions are simply not worth registering in. That being said, sunrise does have an important value. If there are up to 100,000 plus registrations based on bona fide brands, and some on the most valuable brands in the world, then the system is working as it is preventing a significant amount of cybersquatting . If we go by he metrics you love, then it is not rocket science to figure out that a landrush approach is going to lead to a large spike of abuse (as we have seen in the past in no sunrise situations). This in turn leads to significant costs of investigating and pursuing infringements, all of which ultimately leads to more costs to consumers and loss of faith in the integrity of the system -- particularly if consumers get tricked or defrauded by a domain name that appears to be related to a brand (e.g., Gucci.shoes) and which could have been registered during a sunrise period. So while I understand that brand owners are not making sunrise registrations across 1000 plus extensions, the point is that they are generally picking the most logical extensions and are not abusing the sunrise system. So whether the number is one percent or less or ten percent, that number doesn't really tell the story. 100,000 plus sunrise registrations prevents a ton of abuse, which benefits everyone in the end. The numbers only approach really misses the mark. It's like saying that if a disease affects less that 1% of the world population, we should not waste money on finding a cure for it and stop all funding on such research (even though the costs of treating the disease for the less than 1% will be staggeringly high). So in closing, I again urge you to concentrate on trying to find a fix to address the limited speculator issue as opposed to beating a dead horse on the sunrise issue. Original Message From: George Kirikos Sent: Friday, August 11, 2017 12:22 AM To: gnso-rpm-wg Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] 99%+ reduction in sunrise utilization rate per TLD supports EFF call for elimination of sunrise Hello, On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 11:21 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote: I don't see the math that created your "talking point" of a "99%+ reduction in sunrise." Can you show your work please? The post at: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2017-August/002321.html<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__mm.icann.org_pipermail_gnso-2Drpm-2Dwg_2017-2DAugust_002321.html&d=DwMFaQ&c=2s2mvbfY0UoSKkl6_Ol9wg&r=L7MB7eHT-UoCXD4iA3c7Sm3JrKXt7T1dG3NjBzCxm1c&m=jwg72GwxQbX1qNofe94rlCW9tHeCPXLavSkWToGTxv0&s=SaVSlCKYsOB5W4Cpqr6ExGPmyYwDyH9LIPojsca4QQM&e=> showed numerous sunrise statistics, ranging from 15,000 on the low end for .mobi (.co was slightly lower, although that's a ccTLD, not a TLD that ICANN is involved with in any way), 32,000 for .asia, 80,000 for .biz/.xxx, and who knows what it was for .info? Even taking the lowest of those (15,000) as the base, 130 (average new gTLD sunrise from The Analysis Group report) divided by 15,000 = 0.0087 = 0.87%, which is less than 1%, i.e. a 99%+ reduction. Of course, if one chose a higher base (.asia, .xxx, .biz, .etc.), or an average of those other sunrises, the reduction is even greater than if one had used the lowest sunrise (from .mobi). As for your other statement: We can't expect Sunrise registrations to outperform the New gTLD Program generally." While the new gTLD program has been a disaster, it hasn't been an underperformance of 99%+ of expectations (perhaps more like 80% to 90% underperformance). Thus, while it's obvious that both have been failures, sunrise usage is an even greater failure than new gTLDs overall. So, even on that relative scale, the sunrise period should be eliminated. Since I know you'll ask "George, why do you say there's been an 80% or 90% underpeformance for new gTLDs?" let me answer that now to save time. I'll use as my reference (besides the obvious general observations of most informed observers) ICANN's own stats: http://domainincite.com/18857-new-gtld-sales-miss-icann-estimates-by-a-mile<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__domainincite.com_18857-2Dnew-2Dgtld-2Dsales-2Dmiss-2Dicann-2Destimates-2Dby-2Da-2Dmile&d=DwMFaQ&c=2s2mvbfY0UoSKkl6_Ol9wg&r=L7MB7eHT-UoCXD4iA3c7Sm3JrKXt7T1dG3NjBzCxm1c&m=jwg72GwxQbX1qNofe94rlCW9tHeCPXLavSkWToGTxv0&s=ENSMgl5Vq0ESXh9K21BdGfbkWFgI8DEjafYfoyk6jdk&e=> where the numbers came in at just 18% of ICANN's original 2014 expectations. For the math-challenged, 100% - 18% = 82% as the level of underperformance. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269<tel:416-588-0269> http://www.leap.com/<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.leap.com_&d=DwMFaQ&c=2s2mvbfY0UoSKkl6_Ol9wg&r=L7MB7eHT-UoCXD4iA3c7Sm3JrKXt7T1dG3NjBzCxm1c&m=jwg72GwxQbX1qNofe94rlCW9tHeCPXLavSkWToGTxv0&s=kHA9dmDW57Os7tC98-17v7gq3b1fuQlSXsCWSuFFG5s&e=> _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_gnso-2Drpm-2Dwg&d=DwMFaQ&c=2s2mvbfY0UoSKkl6_Ol9wg&r=L7MB7eHT-UoCXD4iA3c7Sm3JrKXt7T1dG3NjBzCxm1c&m=jwg72GwxQbX1qNofe94rlCW9tHeCPXLavSkWToGTxv0&s=L5xCyWjXz-wJa5DougcLVpIPPWlTxh4NXwwzhsdokec&e=> ________________________________ Confidentiality Notice: This communication constitutes an electronic communication within the meaning of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 2510, and its disclosure is strictly limited to the recipient intended by the sender of this message. This transmission, and any attachments, may contain confidential attorney-client privileged information and attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. Please contact us immediately by return e-mail or at 404 815 6500<tel:404%20815%206500>, and destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading or saving in any manner. ________________________________ ***DISCLAIMER*** Per Treasury Department Circular 230: Any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein. _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_gnso-2Drpm-2Dwg&d=DwMFaQ&c=2s2mvbfY0UoSKkl6_Ol9wg&r=L7MB7eHT-UoCXD4iA3c7Sm3JrKXt7T1dG3NjBzCxm1c&m=jwg72GwxQbX1qNofe94rlCW9tHeCPXLavSkWToGTxv0&s=L5xCyWjXz-wJa5DougcLVpIPPWlTxh4NXwwzhsdokec&e=> -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901<tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20901> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851<tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20851> Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.key-2Dsystems.net&d=...> / www.RRPproxy.net<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.RRPproxy.net&d=DwMFa...> www.domaindiscount24.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.domaindiscount24.com...> / www.BrandShelter.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.BrandShelter.com&d=D...> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.facebook.com_KeySyst...> www.twitter.com/key_systems<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.twitter.com_key-5Fsy...> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.keydrive.lu&d=DwMFaQ...> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901<tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20901> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851<tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20851> Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.key-2Dsystems.net&d=...> / www.RRPproxy.net<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.RRPproxy.net&d=DwMFa...> www.domaindiscount24.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.domaindiscount24.com...> / www.BrandShelter.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.BrandShelter.com&d=D...> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.facebook.com_KeySyst...> www.twitter.com/key_systems<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.twitter.com_key-5Fsy...> CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.keydrive.lu&d=DwMFaQ...> This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone. _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_gnso-2Drpm-2Dwg&d=DwMFaQ&c=2s2mvbfY0UoSKkl6_Ol9wg&r=L7MB7eHT-UoCXD4iA3c7Sm3JrKXt7T1dG3NjBzCxm1c&m=jwg72GwxQbX1qNofe94rlCW9tHeCPXLavSkWToGTxv0&s=L5xCyWjXz-wJa5DougcLVpIPPWlTxh4NXwwzhsdokec&e=> ________________________________ If you are not an intended recipient of confidential and privileged information in this email, please delete it, notify us immediately at postmaster@gtlaw.com<mailto:postmaster@gtlaw.com>, and do not use or disseminate such information. -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901<tel:+49%206894%209396901> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851<tel:+49%206894%209396851> Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.RRPproxy.net> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.BrandShelter.com> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901<tel:+49%206894%209396901> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851<tel:+49%206894%209396851> Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.RRPproxy.net> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.BrandShelter.com> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone. _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg ________________________________
Thanks Kathy. My concern is that we are spending lots of time on something (the elimination of the RPMs instead of their review) that has zero chance of reaching consensus. Everyone in the community is being polite to us in this PDP right now because SubPro also is mid-PDP, but if they get done before us and we are still not anywhere near finished because we endlessly discussed to the inevitable non-consensus the destruction of Sunrise and other RPMs, I fear that politeness from the community will fade if we are all that is blocking Round 2. Instead, I suggest we get on with the business of reviewing the RPMs and not get bogged down any further on the destruction of the RPMs. Best, Paul From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kathy Kleiman Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2017 9:31 AM To: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] 99%+ reduction in sunrise utilization rate per TLD supports EFF call for elimination of sunrise Hi All, Happy Summer to All who are celebrating it. I am teaching my teenage son to drive which makes every other challenge of my life look minor! I've reviewed the email of the last few days and want to thank everyone for a candid and frankly exciting discussion. These are difficult issues, and frankly, there was nothing boring about the discussion taking place here! My only concern is that it is, in my personal opinion, untimely. We have yet to gather or review the data of the Sunrise Period questions. As the first group to review the Sunrise Period as a Consensus Policy, it seems to be very much within our ambit and duty to ask "is it fit for purpose?" "Is it being used?" "Is it being abused?" I believe all of these questions are part of the materials that Lori Schulman and the Sunrise Team have put before us. I see all of these questions - and some proposed answers -- in the email of the last few days. I also see some intriguing ideas for tweaks to the system that might a) eliminate existing problems and b) serve the same TM protection goals (thank you Volker). My only issue is that we have yet to fully understand the existing problems. That's the goal of the data gathering and the process of evaluation and discussion ahead, right? What seems to be the issue is whether Jeremy Malcolm's proposal to eliminate the Sunrise Period is valid. First, it was timely submitted so I see nothing procedurally that would remove it from consideration. Second, it seems pretty consistent with the larger evaluation taking place as we look at the TMCH Database generally, TM Claims, and Sunrise Period. We seem to be asking the same questions across all categories (which makes sense to me): is it fit for purpose, is it meeting that purpose, is it causing other unintended problems? In the end, what recommendations will be pass on to the GNSO Council, e.g., do we keep it, do we tweak it, do we expand it, do we remove it? do we reframe and revise it? And yes, where we stand on these issues depends on where we sit (not my original quote :-)). Thank you for the preview of the robust discussion ahead! IMHO, this is a discussion for a later date after our review of the Sunrise Period data, inputs and findings. Best, Kathy On 8/14/2017 4:25 PM, Michael Graham (ELCA) wrote: While interesting, I believe Volker’s proposal would add an additional level of clerical requirements while at the same time providing an additional point of possible error and effort in the process. Michael R. From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Volker Greimann Sent: Monday, August 14, 2017 3:43 AM To: trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com<mailto:trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com>; mike@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com> Cc: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] 99%+ reduction in sunrise utilization rate per TLD supports EFF call for elimination of sunrise That one is relatively easy. At this time, registries are already required to remove various lists of domains from the pool of available domains: - domains blocked by ICANN - domains blocked by policies or agreement (country names and abbreviations, etc) - name collision matches - for some geoTLDs: domains reverved by the government entity for their own use - unpriced premium names This proposal would simply add one further category of names that would be reserved for the general public, but open for registration by authorized entities. The TMCH would provide the list to the registry operators. Best, Volker Am 11.08.2017 um 20:19 schrieb trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com<mailto:trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com>: One other question. How do you propose removing the eligible sunrise domain names from the pool of available domain names? Would the TMCH provide a list of all unique marks registered to each registrar? Best regards, Marc H. Trachtenberg Shareholder Greenberg Traurig, LLP | 77 West Wacker Drive | Suite 3100 | Chicago, IL 60601 Tel 312.456.1020 Mobile 773.677.3305 trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com<mailto:trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com> | www.gtlaw.com<http://www.gtlaw.com/> [Greenberg Traurig] From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh Sent: Friday, August 11, 2017 1:13 PM To: Volker Greimann Cc: David A. Tait Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] 99%+ reduction in sunrise utilization rate per TLD supports EFF call for elimination of sunrise I like Volker's idea at first glance. It seems at least worthy of exploration whether indeed it "would solve many of the existing issues." Volker could you provide a litte more depth to that -- what issues you think might be solved? Thanks, Mike Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__rodenbaugh.com&d=DwMFaQ&c=2s2mvbfY0UoSKkl6_Ol9wg&r=L7MB7eHT-UoCXD4iA3c7Sm3JrKXt7T1dG3NjBzCxm1c&m=jwg72GwxQbX1qNofe94rlCW9tHeCPXLavSkWToGTxv0&s=0UbQGByGsiXMTHxa2peJUr-Vj9B26hhK3Ykh2kbLRZE&e=> On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 6:44 AM, Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>> wrote: I will not dispute the effectiveness of Sunrise periods for rights holders, however there may be better options that provide just as much protection but have less impact on the release of a new TLD. For example, sunrise could be run concurrently with the general launch of a TLD simply by removing the eligible sunrise domain names from the pool of available domain names. Rights holders could still use their TMCH-tokens to register these semi-reserved strings as domain names but the release of the TLD to the general public would not be held back. Other potential registrants would merely receive a notice that this string is reserved until date X due to claimed rights of third parties (which could double as an abbreviated claims notice), or even opt to queue their registration request until the reservation period is over. This would actually solve many of the existing issues. Best, Volker Am 11.08.2017 um 15:12 schrieb Nahitchevansky, Georges: I was not going to engage in yet more back and forth on sunrise, but in reading your email, and those of several others, I feel compelled to say something on this by the numbers discussion. This type of metric driven approach is very much akin to driving down a road with blinders on either side. It's a tad pedantic and as we know from history these types of approaches (many times pushed by bureaucrats) can often lead to disastrous decisions (e.g. Soviet style five year plans). You need to look at the overall situation and what is going on, as opposed to just getting caught up in the numbers -- which after all can get sliced and diced any number of ways. The reality is that brand owners are using sunrise to protect their brands in the key extensions that relate to their businesses. The numbers may not be huge per se, but the new gTLD program has pretty much, by all accounts, not been the success that ICANN had hoped for. Moreover, we all know that the success of the extensions has been quite uneven. Some are barely breaking even, some have been a great success, others have failed and yet others have only experienced lackluster results. What all of this means is that some extensions are simply not worth registering in. That being said, sunrise does have an important value. If there are up to 100,000 plus registrations based on bona fide brands, and some on the most valuable brands in the world, then the system is working as it is preventing a significant amount of cybersquatting . If we go by he metrics you love, then it is not rocket science to figure out that a landrush approach is going to lead to a large spike of abuse (as we have seen in the past in no sunrise situations). This in turn leads to significant costs of investigating and pursuing infringements, all of which ultimately leads to more costs to consumers and loss of faith in the integrity of the system -- particularly if consumers get tricked or defrauded by a domain name that appears to be related to a brand (e.g., Gucci.shoes) and which could have been registered during a sunrise period. So while I understand that brand owners are not making sunrise registrations across 1000 plus extensions, the point is that they are generally picking the most logical extensions and are not abusing the sunrise system. So whether the number is one percent or less or ten percent, that number doesn't really tell the story. 100,000 plus sunrise registrations prevents a ton of abuse, which benefits everyone in the end. The numbers only approach really misses the mark. It's like saying that if a disease affects less that 1% of the world population, we should not waste money on finding a cure for it and stop all funding on such research (even though the costs of treating the disease for the less than 1% will be staggeringly high). So in closing, I again urge you to concentrate on trying to find a fix to address the limited speculator issue as opposed to beating a dead horse on the sunrise issue. Original Message From: George Kirikos Sent: Friday, August 11, 2017 12:22 AM To: gnso-rpm-wg Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] 99%+ reduction in sunrise utilization rate per TLD supports EFF call for elimination of sunrise Hello, On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 11:21 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote: I don't see the math that created your "talking point" of a "99%+ reduction in sunrise." Can you show your work please? The post at: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2017-August/002321.html<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__mm.icann.org_pipermail_gnso-2Drpm-2Dwg_2017-2DAugust_002321.html&d=DwMFaQ&c=2s2mvbfY0UoSKkl6_Ol9wg&r=L7MB7eHT-UoCXD4iA3c7Sm3JrKXt7T1dG3NjBzCxm1c&m=jwg72GwxQbX1qNofe94rlCW9tHeCPXLavSkWToGTxv0&s=SaVSlCKYsOB5W4Cpqr6ExGPmyYwDyH9LIPojsca4QQM&e=> showed numerous sunrise statistics, ranging from 15,000 on the low end for .mobi (.co was slightly lower, although that's a ccTLD, not a TLD that ICANN is involved with in any way), 32,000 for .asia, 80,000 for .biz/.xxx, and who knows what it was for .info? Even taking the lowest of those (15,000) as the base, 130 (average new gTLD sunrise from The Analysis Group report) divided by 15,000 = 0.0087 = 0.87%, which is less than 1%, i.e. a 99%+ reduction. Of course, if one chose a higher base (.asia, .xxx, .biz, .etc.), or an average of those other sunrises, the reduction is even greater than if one had used the lowest sunrise (from .mobi). As for your other statement: We can't expect Sunrise registrations to outperform the New gTLD Program generally." While the new gTLD program has been a disaster, it hasn't been an underperformance of 99%+ of expectations (perhaps more like 80% to 90% underperformance). Thus, while it's obvious that both have been failures, sunrise usage is an even greater failure than new gTLDs overall. So, even on that relative scale, the sunrise period should be eliminated. Since I know you'll ask "George, why do you say there's been an 80% or 90% underpeformance for new gTLDs?" let me answer that now to save time. I'll use as my reference (besides the obvious general observations of most informed observers) ICANN's own stats: http://domainincite.com/18857-new-gtld-sales-miss-icann-estimates-by-a-mile<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__domainincite.com_18857-2Dnew-2Dgtld-2Dsales-2Dmiss-2Dicann-2Destimates-2Dby-2Da-2Dmile&d=DwMFaQ&c=2s2mvbfY0UoSKkl6_Ol9wg&r=L7MB7eHT-UoCXD4iA3c7Sm3JrKXt7T1dG3NjBzCxm1c&m=jwg72GwxQbX1qNofe94rlCW9tHeCPXLavSkWToGTxv0&s=ENSMgl5Vq0ESXh9K21BdGfbkWFgI8DEjafYfoyk6jdk&e=> where the numbers came in at just 18% of ICANN's original 2014 expectations. For the math-challenged, 100% - 18% = 82% as the level of underperformance. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269<tel:416-588-0269> http://www.leap.com/<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.leap.com_&d=DwMFaQ&c=2s2mvbfY0UoSKkl6_Ol9wg&r=L7MB7eHT-UoCXD4iA3c7Sm3JrKXt7T1dG3NjBzCxm1c&m=jwg72GwxQbX1qNofe94rlCW9tHeCPXLavSkWToGTxv0&s=kHA9dmDW57Os7tC98-17v7gq3b1fuQlSXsCWSuFFG5s&e=> _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_gnso-2Drpm-2Dwg&d=DwMFaQ&c=2s2mvbfY0UoSKkl6_Ol9wg&r=L7MB7eHT-UoCXD4iA3c7Sm3JrKXt7T1dG3NjBzCxm1c&m=jwg72GwxQbX1qNofe94rlCW9tHeCPXLavSkWToGTxv0&s=L5xCyWjXz-wJa5DougcLVpIPPWlTxh4NXwwzhsdokec&e=> ________________________________ Confidentiality Notice: This communication constitutes an electronic communication within the meaning of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 2510, and its disclosure is strictly limited to the recipient intended by the sender of this message. This transmission, and any attachments, may contain confidential attorney-client privileged information and attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. Please contact us immediately by return e-mail or at 404 815 6500<tel:404%20815%206500>, and destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading or saving in any manner. ________________________________ ***DISCLAIMER*** Per Treasury Department Circular 230: Any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein. _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_gnso-2Drpm-2Dwg&d=DwMFaQ&c=2s2mvbfY0UoSKkl6_Ol9wg&r=L7MB7eHT-UoCXD4iA3c7Sm3JrKXt7T1dG3NjBzCxm1c&m=jwg72GwxQbX1qNofe94rlCW9tHeCPXLavSkWToGTxv0&s=L5xCyWjXz-wJa5DougcLVpIPPWlTxh4NXwwzhsdokec&e=> -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901<tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20901> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851<tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20851> Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.key-2Dsystems.net&d=...> / www.RRPproxy.net<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.RRPproxy.net&d=DwMFa...> www.domaindiscount24.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.domaindiscount24.com...> / www.BrandShelter.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.BrandShelter.com&d=D...> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.facebook.com_KeySyst...> www.twitter.com/key_systems<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.twitter.com_key-5Fsy...> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.keydrive.lu&d=DwMFaQ...> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901<tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20901> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851<tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20851> Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.key-2Dsystems.net&d=...> / www.RRPproxy.net<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.RRPproxy.net&d=DwMFa...> www.domaindiscount24.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.domaindiscount24.com...> / www.BrandShelter.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.BrandShelter.com&d=D...> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.facebook.com_KeySyst...> www.twitter.com/key_systems<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.twitter.com_key-5Fsy...> CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.keydrive.lu&d=DwMFaQ...> This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone. _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_gnso-2Drpm-2Dwg&d=DwMFaQ&c=2s2mvbfY0UoSKkl6_Ol9wg&r=L7MB7eHT-UoCXD4iA3c7Sm3JrKXt7T1dG3NjBzCxm1c&m=jwg72GwxQbX1qNofe94rlCW9tHeCPXLavSkWToGTxv0&s=L5xCyWjXz-wJa5DougcLVpIPPWlTxh4NXwwzhsdokec&e=> ________________________________ If you are not an intended recipient of confidential and privileged information in this email, please delete it, notify us immediately at postmaster@gtlaw.com<mailto:postmaster@gtlaw.com>, and do not use or disseminate such information. -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.RRPproxy.net> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.BrandShelter.com> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.RRPproxy.net> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.BrandShelter.com> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone. _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg ________________________________ The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. If this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author. Any tax advice contained in this email was not intended to be used, and cannot be used, by you (or any other taxpayer) to avoid penalties under applicable tax laws and regulations.
This brings up a couple of philosophical questions that I hope aren’t too far afield, but are implicated by Paul’s comment. * What is the definition of consensus (is it unanimity or something less)? * Is consensus required for this PDP to make recommendations? * Would consensus be required for this PDP to recommend that Sunrise be maintained in the next round (or is consensus only required to recommend a change from the last round)? I tend to agree with many here that Sunrise leaves a relatively light footprint (as opposed to claims), and are useful in the tapestry of RPMs, so I think Sunrise is a useful mechanism and should be maintained (and improved). But it’s not clear to me that we can shut down recommendations that are unlikely to reach consensus, when their opposite is also unlikely to meet consensus. Jonathan Jonathan Frost General Counsel Telephone: (+1)877-707-5752 100 SE 3rd Avenue, #1310 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33394 E-Mail: <mailto:jonathan@get.club> jonathan@get.club Website: <http://www.get.club/> www.get.club <https://app.getsignals.com/link?url=http%3a%2f%2fwww.nic.club%2f&ukey=agxzfn...> Please be advised that this communication is confidential. The information contained in this e-mail, and any attachments, may also be attorney-client privileged and/or work product confidential. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify Jonathan Frost by telephone at 877.707.5752 or by email at <mailto:jonathan@get.club> jonathan@get.club and delete the original message. From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of icannlists Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2017 1:08 PM To: Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com>; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] 99%+ reduction in sunrise utilization rate per TLD supports EFF call for elimination of sunrise Thanks Kathy. My concern is that we are spending lots of time on something (the elimination of the RPMs instead of their review) that has zero chance of reaching consensus. Everyone in the community is being polite to us in this PDP right now because SubPro also is mid-PDP, but if they get done before us and we are still not anywhere near finished because we endlessly discussed to the inevitable non-consensus the destruction of Sunrise and other RPMs, I fear that politeness from the community will fade if we are all that is blocking Round 2. Instead, I suggest we get on with the business of reviewing the RPMs and not get bogged down any further on the destruction of the RPMs. Best, Paul From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kathy Kleiman Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2017 9:31 AM To: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] 99%+ reduction in sunrise utilization rate per TLD supports EFF call for elimination of sunrise Hi All, Happy Summer to All who are celebrating it. I am teaching my teenage son to drive which makes every other challenge of my life look minor! I've reviewed the email of the last few days and want to thank everyone for a candid and frankly exciting discussion. These are difficult issues, and frankly, there was nothing boring about the discussion taking place here! My only concern is that it is, in my personal opinion, untimely. We have yet to gather or review the data of the Sunrise Period questions. As the first group to review the Sunrise Period as a Consensus Policy, it seems to be very much within our ambit and duty to ask "is it fit for purpose?" "Is it being used?" "Is it being abused?" I believe all of these questions are part of the materials that Lori Schulman and the Sunrise Team have put before us. I see all of these questions - and some proposed answers -- in the email of the last few days. I also see some intriguing ideas for tweaks to the system that might a) eliminate existing problems and b) serve the same TM protection goals (thank you Volker). My only issue is that we have yet to fully understand the existing problems. That's the goal of the data gathering and the process of evaluation and discussion ahead, right? What seems to be the issue is whether Jeremy Malcolm's proposal to eliminate the Sunrise Period is valid. First, it was timely submitted so I see nothing procedurally that would remove it from consideration. Second, it seems pretty consistent with the larger evaluation taking place as we look at the TMCH Database generally, TM Claims, and Sunrise Period. We seem to be asking the same questions across all categories (which makes sense to me): is it fit for purpose, is it meeting that purpose, is it causing other unintended problems? In the end, what recommendations will be pass on to the GNSO Council, e.g., do we keep it, do we tweak it, do we expand it, do we remove it? do we reframe and revise it? And yes, where we stand on these issues depends on where we sit (not my original quote :-)). Thank you for the preview of the robust discussion ahead! IMHO, this is a discussion for a later date after our review of the Sunrise Period data, inputs and findings. Best, Kathy On 8/14/2017 4:25 PM, Michael Graham (ELCA) wrote: While interesting, I believe Volker’s proposal would add an additional level of clerical requirements while at the same time providing an additional point of possible error and effort in the process. Michael R. From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Volker Greimann Sent: Monday, August 14, 2017 3:43 AM To: trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com <mailto:trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com> ; mike@rodenbaugh.com <mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com> Cc: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] 99%+ reduction in sunrise utilization rate per TLD supports EFF call for elimination of sunrise That one is relatively easy. At this time, registries are already required to remove various lists of domains from the pool of available domains: - domains blocked by ICANN - domains blocked by policies or agreement (country names and abbreviations, etc) - name collision matches - for some geoTLDs: domains reverved by the government entity for their own use - unpriced premium names This proposal would simply add one further category of names that would be reserved for the general public, but open for registration by authorized entities. The TMCH would provide the list to the registry operators. Best, Volker Am 11.08.2017 um 20:19 schrieb trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com <mailto:trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com> : One other question. How do you propose removing the eligible sunrise domain names from the pool of available domain names? Would the TMCH provide a list of all unique marks registered to each registrar? Best regards, Marc H. Trachtenberg Shareholder Greenberg Traurig, LLP | 77 West Wacker Drive | Suite 3100 | Chicago, IL 60601 Tel 312.456.1020 Mobile 773.677.3305 <mailto:trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com> trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com | <http://www.gtlaw.com/> www.gtlaw.com From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh Sent: Friday, August 11, 2017 1:13 PM To: Volker Greimann Cc: David A. Tait Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] 99%+ reduction in sunrise utilization rate per TLD supports EFF call for elimination of sunrise I like Volker's idea at first glance. It seems at least worthy of exploration whether indeed it "would solve many of the existing issues." Volker could you provide a litte more depth to that -- what issues you think might be solved? Thanks, Mike Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__rodenbaugh.com&d=DwMFaQ&...> On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 6:44 AM, Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> > wrote: I will not dispute the effectiveness of Sunrise periods for rights holders, however there may be better options that provide just as much protection but have less impact on the release of a new TLD. For example, sunrise could be run concurrently with the general launch of a TLD simply by removing the eligible sunrise domain names from the pool of available domain names. Rights holders could still use their TMCH-tokens to register these semi-reserved strings as domain names but the release of the TLD to the general public would not be held back. Other potential registrants would merely receive a notice that this string is reserved until date X due to claimed rights of third parties (which could double as an abbreviated claims notice), or even opt to queue their registration request until the reservation period is over. This would actually solve many of the existing issues. Best, Volker Am 11.08.2017 um 15:12 schrieb Nahitchevansky, Georges: I was not going to engage in yet more back and forth on sunrise, but in reading your email, and those of several others, I feel compelled to say something on this by the numbers discussion. This type of metric driven approach is very much akin to driving down a road with blinders on either side. It's a tad pedantic and as we know from history these types of approaches (many times pushed by bureaucrats) can often lead to disastrous decisions (e.g. Soviet style five year plans). You need to look at the overall situation and what is going on, as opposed to just getting caught up in the numbers -- which after all can get sliced and diced any number of ways. The reality is that brand owners are using sunrise to protect their brands in the key extensions that relate to their businesses. The numbers may not be huge per se, but the new gTLD program has pretty much, by all accounts, not been the success that ICANN had hoped for. Moreover, we all know that the success of the extensions has been quite uneven. Some are barely breaking even, some have been a great success, others have failed and yet others have only experienced lackluster results. What all of this means is that some extensions are simply not worth registering in. That being said, sunrise does have an important value. If there are up to 100,000 plus registrations based on bona fide brands, and some on the most valuable brands in the world, then the system is working as it is preventing a significant amount of cybersquatting . If we go by he metrics you love, then it is not rocket science to figure out that a landrush approach is going to lead to a large spike of abuse (as we have seen in the past in no sunrise situations). This in turn leads to significant costs of investigating and pursuing infringements, all of which ultimately leads to more costs to consumers and loss of faith in the integrity of the system -- particularly if consumers get tricked or defrauded by a domain name that appears to be related to a brand (e.g., Gucci.shoes) and which could have been registered during a sunrise period. So while I understand that brand owners are not making sunrise registrations across 1000 plus extensions, the point is that they are generally picking the most logical extensions and are not abusing the sunrise system. So whether the number is one percent or less or ten percent, that number doesn't really tell the story. 100,000 plus sunrise registrations prevents a ton of abuse, which benefits everyone in the end. The numbers only approach really misses the mark. It's like saying that if a disease affects less that 1% of the world population, we should not waste money on finding a cure for it and stop all funding on such research (even though the costs of treating the disease for the less than 1% will be staggeringly high). So in closing, I again urge you to concentrate on trying to find a fix to address the limited speculator issue as opposed to beating a dead horse on the sunrise issue. Original Message From: George Kirikos Sent: Friday, August 11, 2017 12:22 AM To: gnso-rpm-wg Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] 99%+ reduction in sunrise utilization rate per TLD supports EFF call for elimination of sunrise Hello, On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 11:21 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> > wrote: I don't see the math that created your "talking point" of a "99%+ reduction in sunrise." Can you show your work please? The post at: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2017-August/002321.html <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__mm.icann.org_pipermail_g...> showed numerous sunrise statistics, ranging from 15,000 on the low end for .mobi (.co was slightly lower, although that's a ccTLD, not a TLD that ICANN is involved with in any way), 32,000 for .asia, 80,000 for .biz/.xxx, and who knows what it was for .info? Even taking the lowest of those (15,000) as the base, 130 (average new gTLD sunrise from The Analysis Group report) divided by 15,000 = 0.0087 = 0.87%, which is less than 1%, i.e. a 99%+ reduction. Of course, if one chose a higher base (.asia, .xxx, .biz, .etc.), or an average of those other sunrises, the reduction is even greater than if one had used the lowest sunrise (from .mobi). As for your other statement: We can't expect Sunrise registrations to outperform the New gTLD Program generally." While the new gTLD program has been a disaster, it hasn't been an underperformance of 99%+ of expectations (perhaps more like 80% to 90% underperformance). Thus, while it's obvious that both have been failures, sunrise usage is an even greater failure than new gTLDs overall. So, even on that relative scale, the sunrise period should be eliminated. Since I know you'll ask "George, why do you say there's been an 80% or 90% underpeformance for new gTLDs?" let me answer that now to save time. I'll use as my reference (besides the obvious general observations of most informed observers) ICANN's own stats: http://domainincite.com/18857-new-gtld-sales-miss-icann-estimates-by-a-mile <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__domainincite.com_18857-2...> where the numbers came in at just 18% of ICANN's original 2014 expectations. For the math-challenged, 100% - 18% = 82% as the level of underperformance. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 <tel:416-588-0269> http://www.leap.com/ <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.leap.com_&d=DwMFaQ&c...> _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...> ________________________________ Confidentiality Notice: This communication constitutes an electronic communication within the meaning of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 2510, and its disclosure is strictly limited to the recipient intended by the sender of this message. This transmission, and any attachments, may contain confidential attorney-client privileged information and attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. Please contact us immediately by return e-mail or at 404 815 6500 <tel:404%20815%206500> , and destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading or saving in any manner. ________________________________ ***DISCLAIMER*** Per Treasury Department Circular 230: Any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein. _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...> -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 <tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20901> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 <tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20851> Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.key-2Dsystems.net&d=...> / www.RRPproxy.net <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.RRPproxy.net&d=DwMFa...> www.domaindiscount24.com <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.domaindiscount24.com...> / www.BrandShelter.com <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.BrandShelter.com&d=D...> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.facebook.com_KeySyst...> www.twitter.com/key_systems <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.twitter.com_key-5Fsy...> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.keydrive.lu&d=DwMFaQ...> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 <tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20901> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 <tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20851> Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.key-2Dsystems.net&d=...> / www.RRPproxy.net <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.RRPproxy.net&d=DwMFa...> www.domaindiscount24.com <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.domaindiscount24.com...> / www.BrandShelter.com <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.BrandShelter.com&d=D...> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.facebook.com_KeySyst...> www.twitter.com/key_systems <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.twitter.com_key-5Fsy...> CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.keydrive.lu&d=DwMFaQ...> This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone. _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...> _____ If you are not an intended recipient of confidential and privileged information in this email, please delete it, notify us immediately at postmaster@gtlaw.com <mailto:postmaster@gtlaw.com> , and do not use or disseminate such information. -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net <http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.RRPproxy.net> www.domaindiscount24.com <http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com <http://www.BrandShelter.com> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems <http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems <http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu <http://www.keydrive.lu> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net <http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.RRPproxy.net> www.domaindiscount24.com <http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com <http://www.BrandShelter.com> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems <http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems <http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu <http://www.keydrive.lu> This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone. _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg _____ The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. If this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author. Any tax advice contained in this email was not intended to be used, and cannot be used, by you (or any other taxpayer) to avoid penalties under applicable tax laws and regulations.
On 17/8/17 10:47 am, Jonathan Frost wrote:
This brings up a couple of philosophical questions that I hope aren’t too far afield, but are implicated by Paul’s comment.
* What is the definition of consensus (is it unanimity or something less)?
* Is consensus required for this PDP to make recommendations?
* Would consensus be required for this PDP to recommend that Sunrise be maintained in the next round (or is consensus only required to recommend a change from the last round)?
I tend to agree with many here that Sunrise leaves a relatively light footprint (as opposed to claims), and are useful in the tapestry of RPMs, so I think Sunrise is a useful mechanism and should be maintained (and improved). But it’s not clear to me that we can shut down recommendations that are unlikely to reach consensus, when their opposite is also unlikely to meet consensus.
Since the new gTLD RPMs were not adopted as ICANN policy covering all gTLDs, there shouldn't be any automatic presumption that they will apply to future rounds in my view. It's this group's role to decide whether they should or not. If *not* making a decision means that we are, by default, deciding to extend the new RPMs to future rounds, then we haven't done our job. That would create a very bad incentive for people to gum up the process and avoid reaching consensus, just because by doing so they will get the outcome that they are looking for anyway. What kind of multi-stakeholderism is that? -- Jeremy Malcolm Senior Global Policy Analyst Electronic Frontier Foundation https://eff.org jmalcolm@eff.org Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161 :: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World :: Public key: https://www.eff.org/files/2016/11/27/key_jmalcolm.txt PGP fingerprint: 75D2 4C0D 35EA EA2F 8CA8 8F79 4911 EC4A EDDF 1122
I agree. It seems to be gaming the process to have the extension as our default position. Michael Karanicolas On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 3:12 PM, Jeremy Malcolm <jmalcolm@eff.org> wrote:
On 17/8/17 10:47 am, Jonathan Frost wrote:
This brings up a couple of philosophical questions that I hope aren’t too far afield, but are implicated by Paul’s comment.
What is the definition of consensus (is it unanimity or something less)?
Is consensus required for this PDP to make recommendations?
Would consensus be required for this PDP to recommend that Sunrise be maintained in the next round (or is consensus only required to recommend a change from the last round)?
I tend to agree with many here that Sunrise leaves a relatively light footprint (as opposed to claims), and are useful in the tapestry of RPMs, so I think Sunrise is a useful mechanism and should be maintained (and improved). But it’s not clear to me that we can shut down recommendations that are unlikely to reach consensus, when their opposite is also unlikely to meet consensus.
Since the new gTLD RPMs were not adopted as ICANN policy covering all gTLDs, there shouldn't be any automatic presumption that they will apply to future rounds in my view. It's this group's role to decide whether they should or not. If *not* making a decision means that we are, by default, deciding to extend the new RPMs to future rounds, then we haven't done our job. That would create a very bad incentive for people to gum up the process and avoid reaching consensus, just because by doing so they will get the outcome that they are looking for anyway. What kind of multi-stakeholderism is that?
-- Jeremy Malcolm Senior Global Policy Analyst Electronic Frontier Foundation https://eff.org jmalcolm@eff.org
Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161
:: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World ::
Public key: https://www.eff.org/files/2016/11/27/key_jmalcolm.txt PGP fingerprint: 75D2 4C0D 35EA EA2F 8CA8 8F79 4911 EC4A EDDF 1122
_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
Jeremy: Here is a link to the Working Group Guidelines developed by the community in 2010: https://gnso.icann.org/en/improvements/gnso-working-group-guidelines-final-1... You will find the answer to your questions around consensus in Section 3.6 Standard Methodology for Making Decisions. J. Scott [tps://inside.corp.adobe.com/content/dam/brandcenter/images/image002.gif] J. Scott Evans 408.536.5336 (tel) 345 Park Avenue, Mail Stop W11-544 Director, Trademarks 408.709.6162 (cell) San Jose, CA, 95110, USA Adobe. Make It an Experience. jsevans@adobe.com www.adobe.com From: <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Jeremy Malcolm <jmalcolm@eff.org> Date: Thursday, August 17, 2017 at 11:12 AM To: Jonathan Frost <jonathan@get.club>, 'icannlists' <icannlists@winston.com>, 'Kathy Kleiman' <kathy@kathykleiman.com>, "gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] 99%+ reduction in sunrise utilization rate per TLD supports EFF call for elimination of sunrise On 17/8/17 10:47 am, Jonathan Frost wrote: This brings up a couple of philosophical questions that I hope aren’t too far afield, but are implicated by Paul’s comment. * What is the definition of consensus (is it unanimity or something less)? * Is consensus required for this PDP to make recommendations? * Would consensus be required for this PDP to recommend that Sunrise be maintained in the next round (or is consensus only required to recommend a change from the last round)? I tend to agree with many here that Sunrise leaves a relatively light footprint (as opposed to claims), and are useful in the tapestry of RPMs, so I think Sunrise is a useful mechanism and should be maintained (and improved). But it’s not clear to me that we can shut down recommendations that are unlikely to reach consensus, when their opposite is also unlikely to meet consensus. Since the new gTLD RPMs were not adopted as ICANN policy covering all gTLDs, there shouldn't be any automatic presumption that they will apply to future rounds in my view. It's this group's role to decide whether they should or not. If *not* making a decision means that we are, by default, deciding to extend the new RPMs to future rounds, then we haven't done our job. That would create a very bad incentive for people to gum up the process and avoid reaching consensus, just because by doing so they will get the outcome that they are looking for anyway. What kind of multi-stakeholderism is that? -- Jeremy Malcolm Senior Global Policy Analyst Electronic Frontier Foundation https://eff.org<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Feff.org&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cf342a263cf754a12325108d4e59b9dac%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636385903925250819&sdata=P00qSS6k1qtGVQNkFDIdoaWiy7AigenAs5WDzWZEp8k%3D&reserved=0> jmalcolm@eff.org<mailto:jmalcolm@eff.org> Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161 :: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World :: Public key: https://www.eff.org/files/2016/11/27/key_jmalcolm.txt<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Ffiles%2F2016%2F11%2F27%2Fkey_jmalcolm.txt&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cf342a263cf754a12325108d4e59b9dac%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636385903925250819&sdata=7iIbRiCOfDMaEhDYHOl%2FpSggHMoXLSKHOmp%2BKnvBYSs%3D&reserved=0> PGP fingerprint: 75D2 4C0D 35EA EA2F 8CA8 8F79 4911 EC4A EDDF 1122
Hi folks, On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 2:12 PM, Jeremy Malcolm <jmalcolm@eff.org> wrote:
That would create a very bad incentive for people to gum up the process and avoid reaching consensus, just because by doing so they will get the outcome that they are looking for anyway. What kind of multi-stakeholderism is that?
I think those that support a position (after all the evidence/data is collected, analyzed, etc.) have to also *justify* that position with good reasons. "Show your work", to throw back a statement Greg has made occasionally. This prevents the bad incentives that you speak about, where people simply "gum up the process" by holding to a position that is untenable and diverges from the facts/evidence and analysis. If folks have watched the film "12 Angry Men" (I watched it again a few days ago -- only 96 mins in length), you'll see what I mean, here's one quote that might sound familiar: Juror #7: I don't know about the rest of 'em but I'm gettin' a little tired of this yakity-yack and back-and-forth, it's gettin' us nowhere. So I guess *I'll* have to break it up; I change my vote to "not guilty." Juror #3: You *what?* Juror #7: You heard me, I've... had enough. Juror #3: Whaddaya mean, you've had enough? That's no answer! Juror #7: Hey, listen, you just uh... take care of yourself, 'uh? You know? Juror #11: He's right. That's not an answer. What kind of a man are you? You have sat here and voted "guilty" with everyone else because there are some baseball tickets burning a hole in your pocket? And now you've changed your vote because you say you're sick of all the talking here? Juror #7: Now listen, buddy - ! Juror #11: Who tells you that you have the right like this to play with a man's life? Don't you care... Juror #7: Now wait a minute! You can't talk like that to me - ! Juror #11: I *can* talk like that to you! If you want to vote "not guilty", then do it because you are convinced the man is not guilty, not because you've "had enough". And if you think he is guilty, then vote that way! Or don't you have the guts to do what you think is right? Juror #7: Now listen... Juror #11: Guilty or not guilty? Juror #7: I told ya! Not guilty! Juror #11: Why? Juror #7: ...Look, I don't have tuh... Juror #11: You *do* have to! *Say* it! *Why?* Juror #7: Uhh... I don't, uh... think he's guilty! [Juror #11 stares back with impatient resignation, and finally returns to his seat] Otherwise, some 'votes' for an untenable position are really just a sham, and would be weighted accordingly when viewed by those outside the PDP, including at the GNSO council level "above" us. One thing the IGO PDP (which I'm also a member of) has done very well, in my opinion, is provide *extensive* footnotes all throughout its final report to explain/support all the analysis, to defend its conclusions against attack (we're about 95% finished our work in that PDP). Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
We need to consensus to change anything that is already in place. We don't need consensus to keep anything already in place. Sent from my iPhone On Aug 17, 2017, at 1:47 PM, Jonathan Frost <jonathan@get.club<mailto:jonathan@get.club>> wrote: This brings up a couple of philosophical questions that I hope aren’t too far afield, but are implicated by Paul’s comment. * What is the definition of consensus (is it unanimity or something less)? * Is consensus required for this PDP to make recommendations? * Would consensus be required for this PDP to recommend that Sunrise be maintained in the next round (or is consensus only required to recommend a change from the last round)? I tend to agree with many here that Sunrise leaves a relatively light footprint (as opposed to claims), and are useful in the tapestry of RPMs, so I think Sunrise is a useful mechanism and should be maintained (and improved). But it’s not clear to me that we can shut down recommendations that are unlikely to reach consensus, when their opposite is also unlikely to meet consensus. Jonathan Jonathan Frost General Counsel Telephone: (+1)877-707-5752 100 SE 3rd Avenue, #1310 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33394 E-Mail: jonathan@get.club<mailto:jonathan@get.club> Website: www.get.club<http://www.get.club/> <image003.jpg><https://app.getsignals.com/link?url=http%3a%2f%2fwww.nic.club%2f&ukey=agxzfn...> Please be advised that this communication is confidential. The information contained in this e-mail, and any attachments, may also be attorney-client privileged and/or work product confidential. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify Jonathan Frost by telephone at 877.707.5752 or by email at jonathan@get.club<mailto:jonathan@get.club> and delete the original message. From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of icannlists Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2017 1:08 PM To: Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>>; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] 99%+ reduction in sunrise utilization rate per TLD supports EFF call for elimination of sunrise Thanks Kathy. My concern is that we are spending lots of time on something (the elimination of the RPMs instead of their review) that has zero chance of reaching consensus. Everyone in the community is being polite to us in this PDP right now because SubPro also is mid-PDP, but if they get done before us and we are still not anywhere near finished because we endlessly discussed to the inevitable non-consensus the destruction of Sunrise and other RPMs, I fear that politeness from the community will fade if we are all that is blocking Round 2. Instead, I suggest we get on with the business of reviewing the RPMs and not get bogged down any further on the destruction of the RPMs. Best, Paul From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kathy Kleiman Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2017 9:31 AM To: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] 99%+ reduction in sunrise utilization rate per TLD supports EFF call for elimination of sunrise Hi All, Happy Summer to All who are celebrating it. I am teaching my teenage son to drive which makes every other challenge of my life look minor! I've reviewed the email of the last few days and want to thank everyone for a candid and frankly exciting discussion. These are difficult issues, and frankly, there was nothing boring about the discussion taking place here! My only concern is that it is, in my personal opinion, untimely. We have yet to gather or review the data of the Sunrise Period questions. As the first group to review the Sunrise Period as a Consensus Policy, it seems to be very much within our ambit and duty to ask "is it fit for purpose?" "Is it being used?" "Is it being abused?" I believe all of these questions are part of the materials that Lori Schulman and the Sunrise Team have put before us. I see all of these questions - and some proposed answers -- in the email of the last few days. I also see some intriguing ideas for tweaks to the system that might a) eliminate existing problems and b) serve the same TM protection goals (thank you Volker). My only issue is that we have yet to fully understand the existing problems. That's the goal of the data gathering and the process of evaluation and discussion ahead, right? What seems to be the issue is whether Jeremy Malcolm's proposal to eliminate the Sunrise Period is valid. First, it was timely submitted so I see nothing procedurally that would remove it from consideration. Second, it seems pretty consistent with the larger evaluation taking place as we look at the TMCH Database generally, TM Claims, and Sunrise Period. We seem to be asking the same questions across all categories (which makes sense to me): is it fit for purpose, is it meeting that purpose, is it causing other unintended problems? In the end, what recommendations will be pass on to the GNSO Council, e.g., do we keep it, do we tweak it, do we expand it, do we remove it? do we reframe and revise it? And yes, where we stand on these issues depends on where we sit (not my original quote :-)). Thank you for the preview of the robust discussion ahead! IMHO, this is a discussion for a later date after our review of the Sunrise Period data, inputs and findings. Best, Kathy On 8/14/2017 4:25 PM, Michael Graham (ELCA) wrote: While interesting, I believe Volker’s proposal would add an additional level of clerical requirements while at the same time providing an additional point of possible error and effort in the process. Michael R. From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Volker Greimann Sent: Monday, August 14, 2017 3:43 AM To: trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com<mailto:trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com>; mike@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com> Cc: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] 99%+ reduction in sunrise utilization rate per TLD supports EFF call for elimination of sunrise That one is relatively easy. At this time, registries are already required to remove various lists of domains from the pool of available domains: - domains blocked by ICANN - domains blocked by policies or agreement (country names and abbreviations, etc) - name collision matches - for some geoTLDs: domains reverved by the government entity for their own use - unpriced premium names This proposal would simply add one further category of names that would be reserved for the general public, but open for registration by authorized entities. The TMCH would provide the list to the registry operators. Best, Volker Am 11.08.2017 um 20:19 schrieb trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com<mailto:trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com>: One other question. How do you propose removing the eligible sunrise domain names from the pool of available domain names? Would the TMCH provide a list of all unique marks registered to each registrar? Best regards, Marc H. Trachtenberg Shareholder Greenberg Traurig, LLP | 77 West Wacker Drive | Suite 3100 | Chicago, IL 60601 Tel 312.456.1020 Mobile 773.677.3305 trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com<mailto:trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com> | www.gtlaw.com<http://www.gtlaw.com/> <image004.jpg> From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh Sent: Friday, August 11, 2017 1:13 PM To: Volker Greimann Cc: David A. Tait Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] 99%+ reduction in sunrise utilization rate per TLD supports EFF call for elimination of sunrise I like Volker's idea at first glance. It seems at least worthy of exploration whether indeed it "would solve many of the existing issues." Volker could you provide a litte more depth to that -- what issues you think might be solved? Thanks, Mike Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__rodenbaugh.com&d=DwMFaQ&c=2s2mvbfY0UoSKkl6_Ol9wg&r=L7MB7eHT-UoCXD4iA3c7Sm3JrKXt7T1dG3NjBzCxm1c&m=jwg72GwxQbX1qNofe94rlCW9tHeCPXLavSkWToGTxv0&s=0UbQGByGsiXMTHxa2peJUr-Vj9B26hhK3Ykh2kbLRZE&e=> On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 6:44 AM, Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>> wrote: I will not dispute the effectiveness of Sunrise periods for rights holders, however there may be better options that provide just as much protection but have less impact on the release of a new TLD. For example, sunrise could be run concurrently with the general launch of a TLD simply by removing the eligible sunrise domain names from the pool of available domain names. Rights holders could still use their TMCH-tokens to register these semi-reserved strings as domain names but the release of the TLD to the general public would not be held back. Other potential registrants would merely receive a notice that this string is reserved until date X due to claimed rights of third parties (which could double as an abbreviated claims notice), or even opt to queue their registration request until the reservation period is over. This would actually solve many of the existing issues. Best, Volker Am 11.08.2017 um 15:12 schrieb Nahitchevansky, Georges: I was not going to engage in yet more back and forth on sunrise, but in reading your email, and those of several others, I feel compelled to say something on this by the numbers discussion. This type of metric driven approach is very much akin to driving down a road with blinders on either side. It's a tad pedantic and as we know from history these types of approaches (many times pushed by bureaucrats) can often lead to disastrous decisions (e.g. Soviet style five year plans). You need to look at the overall situation and what is going on, as opposed to just getting caught up in the numbers -- which after all can get sliced and diced any number of ways. The reality is that brand owners are using sunrise to protect their brands in the key extensions that relate to their businesses. The numbers may not be huge per se, but the new gTLD program has pretty much, by all accounts, not been the success that ICANN had hoped for. Moreover, we all know that the success of the extensions has been quite uneven. Some are barely breaking even, some have been a great success, others have failed and yet others have only experienced lackluster results. What all of this means is that some extensions are simply not worth registering in. That being said, sunrise does have an important value. If there are up to 100,000 plus registrations based on bona fide brands, and some on the most valuable brands in the world, then the system is working as it is preventing a significant amount of cybersquatting . If we go by he metrics you love, then it is not rocket science to figure out that a landrush approach is going to lead to a large spike of abuse (as we have seen in the past in no sunrise situations). This in turn leads to significant costs of investigating and pursuing infringements, all of which ultimately leads to more costs to consumers and loss of faith in the integrity of the system -- particularly if consumers get tricked or defrauded by a domain name that appears to be related to a brand (e.g., Gucci.shoes) and which could have been registered during a sunrise period. So while I understand that brand owners are not making sunrise registrations across 1000 plus extensions, the point is that they are generally picking the most logical extensions and are not abusing the sunrise system. So whether the number is one percent or less or ten percent, that number doesn't really tell the story. 100,000 plus sunrise registrations prevents a ton of abuse, which benefits everyone in the end. The numbers only approach really misses the mark. It's like saying that if a disease affects less that 1% of the world population, we should not waste money on finding a cure for it and stop all funding on such research (even though the costs of treating the disease for the less than 1% will be staggeringly high). So in closing, I again urge you to concentrate on trying to find a fix to address the limited speculator issue as opposed to beating a dead horse on the sunrise issue. Original Message From: George Kirikos Sent: Friday, August 11, 2017 12:22 AM To: gnso-rpm-wg Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] 99%+ reduction in sunrise utilization rate per TLD supports EFF call for elimination of sunrise Hello, On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 11:21 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote: I don't see the math that created your "talking point" of a "99%+ reduction in sunrise." Can you show your work please? The post at: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2017-August/002321.html<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__mm.icann.org_pipermail_gnso-2Drpm-2Dwg_2017-2DAugust_002321.html&d=DwMFaQ&c=2s2mvbfY0UoSKkl6_Ol9wg&r=L7MB7eHT-UoCXD4iA3c7Sm3JrKXt7T1dG3NjBzCxm1c&m=jwg72GwxQbX1qNofe94rlCW9tHeCPXLavSkWToGTxv0&s=SaVSlCKYsOB5W4Cpqr6ExGPmyYwDyH9LIPojsca4QQM&e=> showed numerous sunrise statistics, ranging from 15,000 on the low end for .mobi (.co was slightly lower, although that's a ccTLD, not a TLD that ICANN is involved with in any way), 32,000 for .asia, 80,000 for .biz/.xxx, and who knows what it was for .info? Even taking the lowest of those (15,000) as the base, 130 (average new gTLD sunrise from The Analysis Group report) divided by 15,000 = 0.0087 = 0.87%, which is less than 1%, i.e. a 99%+ reduction. Of course, if one chose a higher base (.asia, .xxx, .biz, .etc.), or an average of those other sunrises, the reduction is even greater than if one had used the lowest sunrise (from .mobi). As for your other statement: We can't expect Sunrise registrations to outperform the New gTLD Program generally." While the new gTLD program has been a disaster, it hasn't been an underperformance of 99%+ of expectations (perhaps more like 80% to 90% underperformance). Thus, while it's obvious that both have been failures, sunrise usage is an even greater failure than new gTLDs overall. So, even on that relative scale, the sunrise period should be eliminated. Since I know you'll ask "George, why do you say there's been an 80% or 90% underpeformance for new gTLDs?" let me answer that now to save time. I'll use as my reference (besides the obvious general observations of most informed observers) ICANN's own stats: http://domainincite.com/18857-new-gtld-sales-miss-icann-estimates-by-a-mile<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__domainincite.com_18857-2Dnew-2Dgtld-2Dsales-2Dmiss-2Dicann-2Destimates-2Dby-2Da-2Dmile&d=DwMFaQ&c=2s2mvbfY0UoSKkl6_Ol9wg&r=L7MB7eHT-UoCXD4iA3c7Sm3JrKXt7T1dG3NjBzCxm1c&m=jwg72GwxQbX1qNofe94rlCW9tHeCPXLavSkWToGTxv0&s=ENSMgl5Vq0ESXh9K21BdGfbkWFgI8DEjafYfoyk6jdk&e=> where the numbers came in at just 18% of ICANN's original 2014 expectations. For the math-challenged, 100% - 18% = 82% as the level of underperformance. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269<tel:416-588-0269> http://www.leap.com/<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.leap.com_&d=DwMFaQ&c=2s2mvbfY0UoSKkl6_Ol9wg&r=L7MB7eHT-UoCXD4iA3c7Sm3JrKXt7T1dG3NjBzCxm1c&m=jwg72GwxQbX1qNofe94rlCW9tHeCPXLavSkWToGTxv0&s=kHA9dmDW57Os7tC98-17v7gq3b1fuQlSXsCWSuFFG5s&e=> _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_gnso-2Drpm-2Dwg&d=DwMFaQ&c=2s2mvbfY0UoSKkl6_Ol9wg&r=L7MB7eHT-UoCXD4iA3c7Sm3JrKXt7T1dG3NjBzCxm1c&m=jwg72GwxQbX1qNofe94rlCW9tHeCPXLavSkWToGTxv0&s=L5xCyWjXz-wJa5DougcLVpIPPWlTxh4NXwwzhsdokec&e=> ________________________________ Confidentiality Notice: This communication constitutes an electronic communication within the meaning of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 2510, and its disclosure is strictly limited to the recipient intended by the sender of this message. This transmission, and any attachments, may contain confidential attorney-client privileged information and attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. Please contact us immediately by return e-mail or at 404 815 6500<tel:404%20815%206500>, and destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading or saving in any manner. ________________________________ ***DISCLAIMER*** Per Treasury Department Circular 230: Any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein. _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_gnso-2Drpm-2Dwg&d=DwMFaQ&c=2s2mvbfY0UoSKkl6_Ol9wg&r=L7MB7eHT-UoCXD4iA3c7Sm3JrKXt7T1dG3NjBzCxm1c&m=jwg72GwxQbX1qNofe94rlCW9tHeCPXLavSkWToGTxv0&s=L5xCyWjXz-wJa5DougcLVpIPPWlTxh4NXwwzhsdokec&e=> -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901<tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20901> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851<tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20851> Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.key-2Dsystems.net&d=...> / www.RRPproxy.net<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.RRPproxy.net&d=DwMFa...> www.domaindiscount24.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.domaindiscount24.com...> / www.BrandShelter.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.BrandShelter.com&d=D...> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.facebook.com_KeySyst...> www.twitter.com/key_systems<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.twitter.com_key-5Fsy...> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.keydrive.lu&d=DwMFaQ...> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901<tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20901> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851<tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20851> Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.key-2Dsystems.net&d=...> / www.RRPproxy.net<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.RRPproxy.net&d=DwMFa...> www.domaindiscount24.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.domaindiscount24.com...> / www.BrandShelter.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.BrandShelter.com&d=D...> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.facebook.com_KeySyst...> www.twitter.com/key_systems<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.twitter.com_key-5Fsy...> CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.keydrive.lu&d=DwMFaQ...> This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone. _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_gnso-2Drpm-2Dwg&d=DwMFaQ&c=2s2mvbfY0UoSKkl6_Ol9wg&r=L7MB7eHT-UoCXD4iA3c7Sm3JrKXt7T1dG3NjBzCxm1c&m=jwg72GwxQbX1qNofe94rlCW9tHeCPXLavSkWToGTxv0&s=L5xCyWjXz-wJa5DougcLVpIPPWlTxh4NXwwzhsdokec&e=> ________________________________ If you are not an intended recipient of confidential and privileged information in this email, please delete it, notify us immediately at postmaster@gtlaw.com<mailto:postmaster@gtlaw.com>, and do not use or disseminate such information. -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.RRPproxy.net> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.BrandShelter.com> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.RRPproxy.net> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.BrandShelter.com> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone. _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg ________________________________ The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. If this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author. Any tax advice contained in this email was not intended to be used, and cannot be used, by you (or any other taxpayer) to avoid penalties under applicable tax laws and regulations.
As this phase would coincide with the claims notice period and fulfil a similar purpose, the current practice would be made redundant. Instead of a claims notice that each registrant would have to approve in the first few days of general availability, the registrant could instead be informed that the domain name is not available for open registration until date X due to existing third party rights. The registrant would therefore be generally warned and be able to do his research before he tries again after date X. It would also allow the registry to go to the initial registration phase right away after delegation (and any required notice period has passed) instead of having to wait another month (or two months) for the seperate sunrise to run its course. It might also help to avoid special sunrise pricing if the phases are merged. Best, Volker Am 11.08.2017 um 20:12 schrieb Mike Rodenbaugh:
I like Volker's idea at first glance. It seems at least worthy of exploration whether indeed it "would solve many of the existing issues." Volker could you provide a litte more depth to that -- what issues you think might be solved?
Thanks, Mike
Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com
On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 6:44 AM, Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>> wrote:
I will not dispute the effectiveness of Sunrise periods for rights holders, however there may be better options that provide just as much protection but have less impact on the release of a new TLD.
For example, sunrise could be run concurrently with the general launch of a TLD simply by removing the eligible sunrise domain names from the pool of available domain names. Rights holders could still use their TMCH-tokens to register these semi-reserved strings as domain names but the release of the TLD to the general public would not be held back. Other potential registrants would merely receive a notice that this string is reserved until date X due to claimed rights of third parties (which could double as an abbreviated claims notice), or even opt to queue their registration request until the reservation period is over.
This would actually solve many of the existing issues.
Best,
Volker
Am 11.08.2017 um 15:12 schrieb Nahitchevansky, Georges:
I was not going to engage in yet more back and forth on sunrise, but in reading your email, and those of several others, I feel compelled to say something on this by the numbers discussion. This type of metric driven approach is very much akin to driving down a road with blinders on either side. It's a tad pedantic and as we know from history these types of approaches (many times pushed by bureaucrats) can often lead to disastrous decisions (e.g. Soviet style five year plans). You need to look at the overall situation and what is going on, as opposed to just getting caught up in the numbers -- which after all can get sliced and diced any number of ways. The reality is that brand owners are using sunrise to protect their brands in the key extensions that relate to their businesses. The numbers may not be huge per se, but the new gTLD program has pretty much, by all accounts, not been the success that ICANN had hoped for. Moreover, we all know that the success of the extensions has been quite uneven. Some are barely breaking even, some have been a great success, others have failed and yet others have only experienced lackluster results. What all of this means is that some extensions are simply not worth registering in.
That being said, sunrise does have an important value. If there are up to 100,000 plus registrations based on bona fide brands, and some on the most valuable brands in the world, then the system is working as it is preventing a significant amount of cybersquatting . If we go by he metrics you love, then it is not rocket science to figure out that a landrush approach is going to lead to a large spike of abuse (as we have seen in the past in no sunrise situations). This in turn leads to significant costs of investigating and pursuing infringements, all of which ultimately leads to more costs to consumers and loss of faith in the integrity of the system -- particularly if consumers get tricked or defrauded by a domain name that appears to be related to a brand (e.g., Gucci.shoes) and which could have been registered during a sunrise period.
So while I understand that brand owners are not making sunrise registrations across 1000 plus extensions, the point is that they are generally picking the most logical extensions and are not abusing the sunrise system. So whether the number is one percent or less or ten percent, that number doesn't really tell the story. 100,000 plus sunrise registrations prevents a ton of abuse, which benefits everyone in the end. The numbers only approach really misses the mark. It's like saying that if a disease affects less that 1% of the world population, we should not waste money on finding a cure for it and stop all funding on such research (even though the costs of treating the disease for the less than 1% will be staggeringly high).
So in closing, I again urge you to concentrate on trying to find a fix to address the limited speculator issue as opposed to beating a dead horse on the sunrise issue.
Original Message From: George Kirikos Sent: Friday, August 11, 2017 12:22 AM To: gnso-rpm-wg Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] 99%+ reduction in sunrise utilization rate per TLD supports EFF call for elimination of sunrise
Hello,
On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 11:21 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote:
I don't see the math that created your "talking point" of a "99%+ reduction in sunrise." Can you show your work please?
The post at:
http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2017-August/002321.html <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2017-August/002321.html>
showed numerous sunrise statistics, ranging from 15,000 on the low end for .mobi (.co was slightly lower, although that's a ccTLD, not a TLD that ICANN is involved with in any way), 32,000 for .asia, 80,000 for .biz/.xxx, and who knows what it was for .info?
Even taking the lowest of those (15,000) as the base, 130 (average new gTLD sunrise from The Analysis Group report) divided by 15,000 = 0.0087 = 0.87%, which is less than 1%, i.e. a 99%+ reduction. Of course, if one chose a higher base (.asia, .xxx, .biz, .etc.), or an average of those other sunrises, the reduction is even greater than if one had used the lowest sunrise (from .mobi).
As for your other statement:
We can't expect Sunrise registrations to outperform the New gTLD Program generally."
While the new gTLD program has been a disaster, it hasn't been an underperformance of 99%+ of expectations (perhaps more like 80% to 90% underperformance). Thus, while it's obvious that both have been failures, sunrise usage is an even greater failure than new gTLDs overall. So, even on that relative scale, the sunrise period should be eliminated.
Since I know you'll ask "George, why do you say there's been an 80% or 90% underpeformance for new gTLDs?" let me answer that now to save time. I'll use as my reference (besides the obvious general observations of most informed observers) ICANN's own stats:
http://domainincite.com/18857-new-gtld-sales-miss-icann-estimates-by-a-mile <http://domainincite.com/18857-new-gtld-sales-miss-icann-estimates-by-a-mile>
where the numbers came in at just 18% of ICANN's original 2014 expectations. For the math-challenged, 100% - 18% = 82% as the level of underperformance.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 <tel:416-588-0269> http://www.leap.com/ _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg>
________________________________
Confidentiality Notice: This communication constitutes an electronic communication within the meaning of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 2510, and its disclosure is strictly limited to the recipient intended by the sender of this message. This transmission, and any attachments, may contain confidential attorney-client privileged information and attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. Please contact us immediately by return e-mail or at 404 815 6500 <tel:404%20815%206500>, and destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading or saving in any manner.
________________________________
***DISCLAIMER*** Per Treasury Department Circular 230: Any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein. _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg>
-- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung.
Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung -
Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 <tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20901> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 <tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20851> Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>
Web: www.key-systems.net <http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.RRPproxy.net> www.domaindiscount24.com <http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com <http://www.BrandShelter.com>
Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems <http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems <http://www.twitter.com/key_systems>
Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu <http://www.keydrive.lu>
Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen.
--------------------------------------------
Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Best regards,
Volker A. Greimann - legal department -
Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 <tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20901> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 <tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20851> Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>
Web: www.key-systems.net <http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.RRPproxy.net> www.domaindiscount24.com <http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com <http://www.BrandShelter.com>
Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems <http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems <http://www.twitter.com/key_systems>
CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu <http://www.keydrive.lu>
This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.
_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg>
-- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.twitter.com/key_systems Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.twitter.com/key_systems CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.
participants (22)
-
Ariel Manoff -
Cking Modern IP -
Colin O'Brien -
Cyntia King
-
George Kirikos -
Greg Shatan -
icannlists -
J. Scott Evans -
Jeremy Malcolm -
John McElwaine -
Jonathan Frost -
Kathy Kleiman -
Kiran Malancharuvil -
Lori Schulman -
Marie Pattullo -
Michael Graham (ELCA) -
Michael Karanicolas -
Mike Rodenbaugh -
Nahitchevansky, Georges -
Paul Tattersfield -
trachtenbergm＠gtlaw.com -
Volker Greimann