99%+ reduction in sunrise utilization rate per TLD supports EFF call for elimination of sunrise
Hi Claudio, Changing the topic to one that is more appropriate, the numbers speak for themselves, namely a greater than 99% reduction in sunrise utilization rates per TLD. Trying to reframe the issue, to look at things in aggregate can't hide that startling truth. That's the same kind of "bad math" that suggests that the new gTLD program is a "success" because there's 20+ million registrations in aggregate (despite the fact that's spread over many, many new TLDs, and that nearly all, if not all of them, individually are considered weak, with stats propped up with high counts of sub-$1 registrations, or even domains that are stuffed into the accounts of registrants of other TLDs (e.g. .xxx with NSI, or .kiwi). If you wanted to start looking at things in aggregate, consider a company like Microsoft, registrant of approximately 80,000 domain names according to DomainTools: https://whois.domaintools.com/microsoft.com or Google with 20,000: https://whois.domaintools.com/google.com and so on. i.e. the fraction of domains they're acquiring via sunrise is still a tiny proportion of their overall holdings. All that would happen, when sunrises are eliminated, is that they would shift their spending to the landrush period instead. Easy-peasy. Why not aggregate the number of unique users of the sunrise, even when across TLD? If Microsoft or Apple or Dell or Google register 2 or 3 or 10 marks each in sunrise, across most/all TLDs, that starts to look like a very narrow group of stakeholders who would be affected by its elimination (and the extent that they are affected is small, given they would just shift their demand to landrush), compared to a situation where it's many different sunrise users in different TLDs. Suppose I own an ice cream shop had sells a cone generating $X in sales per day, and I decide to launch a new flavour of that ice cream cone. That new flavour generated less than 1% of $X (i.e. a 99%+ reduction). I would call that a failure. I would call that a disaster. I would not be "declaring success" and launching 1000 more flavours each generating less than 1% of $X. So, the new talking point is the 99%+ reduction in sunrise utilization rates per TLD (no need to even mention 130 domains anymore, when one can simply talk about a 99%+ decline). As for DPML, that's essentially an attempt to privately replicate and monetize the poorly received "Globally Protected Marks List" proposal. Can't see how folks like paying for domains they can't use (i.e. it's a scaremongering purchase, buy this or someone else might get it, and once again using TMs to jump the queue), and also preventing good faith purchasers who might desire it. That's even worse than sunrise, in my opinion. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 12:04 PM, claudio di gangi <ipcdigangi@gmail.com> wrote:
George,
I provided a few follow-up thoughts/questions below for your consideration.
1. It may be more accurate to consider uptake from the perspective of how many Sunrise registrations take place per calendar year (naturally, there is a limited amount of funds that can be spent on these services):
How many Sunrise registrations took place in 2008, 2009, or 2010 vs. 2015, 2016, and 2017, etc. - do we have the yearly numbers so we can compare the stats?
2. Another variable is the extent of costs that are imposed per Calendar year, or how much is spent on Sunrise on a yearly basis? For example, I believe the average for .sucks was several thousand (US dollars) per Sunrise domain and from recollection, there was several thousand Sunrise registrations, so several million dollars in social costs were imposed in that one domain. Do we have stats on the extent of costs imposed per calendar year so we can make the comparison?
3. Examine uptake from the perspective of all pre-launch defensive registrations. In the 2012 round, some of the additional marketplace RPMs, such as the DPML, supplemented the Sunrise service. If a brand utitlized the DPML, they didn't use Sunrise across hundreds of gTLDs, which lowers the observable number of pre-launch defensive registrations per TLD. Do we know how many blocking services registrations were purchased so we can add these numbers into the totals?
Of course, there are many other issues that impact this type of purchasing decision, including some that were described on the list yesterday. Hope helpful.
Best, Claudio
On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 7:31 AM George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote:
Jon,
How can *objectively* argue that sunrise program has been a success (I can see how one can argue the political angle, but we're not here to argue politics, we're here to look at facts and evidence), when the data says otherwise? We know that on average a mere 130 registrations occur per TLD in sunrises, which means that the benefits are small, and one must compare those with the costs.
Let's try to put 130 per TLD in perspective. I was looking for stats on the .eu sunrises, and perhaps others have better sources, but according to a Google search for ".eu sunrise period registrations total" one of the hits was to the book "Information Technology Law" (Diane Rowland et al), it stated there were 346,218 applications filed for 245,908 different domain names. Those numbers don't provide a citation, but they seem consistent with a Eurid report:
https://eurid.eu/media/filer_public/1d/1e/1d1ef034-e097-41ad-99b1-1a0d5814f3...
which states (page 9) that the validation agent had validated (while sunrise validations were still in progress) 140,000 applications.
I couldn't find the .info stats (although I did find that there were more than 15,000 *challenges* to sunrise registrations, see http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/reports/info-sunrise/report/index.html, so the aggregate total must have been much higher ), but I did find the .asia ones, where there were 30,780 sunrise domain applications:
https://www.dot.asia/asia-sunrise-completed-with-over-30000-domain-applicati...
Calzone.org provided their own stats:
http://calzone.org/tld/calzonenews/2014/03/04/rolling-average-for-tld-sunris...
.xxx sunrise: 80,000 blocks (2011) .co sunrise: 11,000 domains (2010) .asia sunrise: 32,000 domains (2008) .mobi sunrise: 15,000 domains (2006) .eu sunrise: 140,000 domains (2006) .biz IP claims: 80,000 (2001)
If new gTLDs had anywhere close to those sunrise statistics, it would be clear there were substantial benefits, and there would be no argument from me. If that was the data, anyone would be laughed at for trying to seriously suggest the benefits were small, given the large uptake. I would be on the other side, arguing that the benefits were obviously high.
But, that *isn't* the data. We know that the numbers are very small. So, let's face the facts, the sunrises were a complete disaster in terms of uptake. That speaks directly to the "benefits" part of the equation.
And we know what the costs were, I won't go into them again.
So, again, I ask anyone to objectively attempt to argue that the new gTLD's sunrise policy was a success, given those disastrous figures compared to .eu, .xxx, .co, .asia, etc. (perhaps someone else can add the complete .info stats with citations, so that we have a full picture).
Instead, the only "basis" for perpetuation of the failed policy is "let's not rock the boat", or "GAC members might get upset" essentially, rather than calling a spade a spade --- it's been an obvious failure.
Let's do our job, look at the evidence objectively and fairly, and use evidence-based policymaking.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 6:42 AM, Jon Nevett <jon@donuts.email> wrote:
I'm sorry George if my email wasn't sufficiently clear, but after debating mandatory sunrises for literally 8 years of my life I think that the time has come to call the debate in this round. While I would support the original IRT proposal to make either sunrise or claims mandatory, I do not support simply throwing out the sunrise requirement for the future. If we cut that kind of a hole in the RPM "tapestry" (old timers might appreciate the reference or not), then we will have to fill it somewhere else. That's just the reality. I have not heard or seen any persuasive evidence or comments to change the 2012 requirements on sunrise, but I have seen from Kurt and others a strong rationale for keeping sunrise mandatory. The point that I made about registries doing it anyway should go to the concerns raised about the harms of a sunrise process -- it generally will happen anyway, but registries should have the flexibility to minimize such harms. I would be happy if the debate moved on the Claims where we might have more alignment.
Best,
jon
On Aug 10, 2017, at 12:35 AM, George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote:
Hi folks,
On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 7:02 PM, Nahitchevansky, Georges <ghn@kilpatricktownsend.com> wrote:
Can we stop this back and forth on the same issue. A number of folks have told you they do not support a proposal to eliminate sunrise. So in mind I think we know what the positions are. It is not helpful to keep re-hashing the same points. Can we just move on to discussing possible fixes for the limited gaming issue as a separate topic.
Sometimes I have to wonder if some posts on this mailing list are some form of parody, or whether they're actually serious. You already know the answer, given the two posts earlier today:
http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2017-August/002304.html http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2017-August/002307.html
Arguing about "stopping this back and forth on the same issue", in light of an identical conversation must be a parody.....
As for the multiple +1s later, some folks might want to re-read the message from May 5th:
http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2017-May/001949.html
"In particular, if you feel compelled to send a “+1” or “Agree” message please just hit “Reply” and not “Reply All”. That way the sender of the original message will know of your support without the other 150-plus members of the WG having to take time away from their other work.
We actually learned many new things today through the civil discourse, exposing more cracks in the positions of those supporting sunrises. These include two registry operator reps openly stated that a sunrise policy is "moot" or "academic", since they'd implement one even if not mandated. If anything, that demonstrates movement towards Jeremy's proposal (indifferent to it being accepted), not away from it.
There's a long history of initial "majority" support for policies at ICANN evaporating as more data/evidence is collected, and as positions are more thoroughly scrutinized.
Just 2 quick ones:
1. It was my analysis of the deeply flawed .biz/info/org contracts (which would have allowed tiered pricing) that got them killed, despite the father of the internet, Vint Cerf, disagreeing with the impact of that analysis:
http://www.circleid.com/posts/icann_tiered_pricing_tld_biz_info_org_domain/
That analysis still rings true today, as new gTLDs exploit the unlimited pricing power that they were wrongly granted in the new gTLD program.
2. IRTP-B PDP -- https://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/inactive/2012/irtp-b
In that PDP, I wasn't a member initially, but joined it after they made a deeply flawed proposal regarding domain transfers. Due to "group think", they came up with a ridiculous proposal called the "ETRP", which would have allowed transfers to be undone within 6 months (which would have had enormous impacts on the secondary market for domains). You can see my first substantial post to that PDP (after my initial post) at:
http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-irtp-b-jun09/msg00301.html
I even openly pointed out the "group think"
http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-irtp-b-jun09/msg00332.html
I was so sickened at being ignored (despite being right) that I even left the list:
http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-irtp-b-jun09/msg00425.html
however I continued to press the issue amongst stakeholders, and guess what?!?!? The proposal was killed! Enough outrage was expressed by the public (which I helped mobilize) in the comment period:
http://forum.icann.org/lists/irtp-b-initial-report/index.html
that the ETRP died on the vine. And, in that PDP, I was the *sole* voice of opposition within that group to their proposal (having joined it to expressly voice why it was flawed).
Now, I don't give these examples to aggrandize myself, but to point out the historical broken processes appear to be repeating themselves, when there are serious contributors to this PDP (not just myself) that have a long track record of being right, even when it appears they're in a minority (even a minority of just one). Go see the film "12 Angry Men" as a more dramatic example.
The way to put forth stronger positions is to actually back them up with facts and arguments, not just saying essentially "I'm not going to be convinced by anything you have to say, so don't bother." That's not consistent with evidence-based policymaking or even appropriate debating tactics. Indeed, it's a form of a "tell" from those whose positions are unable to withstand scrutiny, to make that sort of weak "Please, say no more" statement.
So, here's some simple advice --- try putting yourself in the shoes of the other person, to see things from their point of view! You might be in a better position to see the weakness of your own arguments, or the strength of theirs, and can then make adjustments to try to get a strong consensus. Folks who've read my posts will note I've bent over backward to attempt to curb cybersquatting (they're no friend of mine), via balanced proposals.
Because, at the end of the day, this PDP has to produce reports that survive wide *public* scrutiny, not just some "majority" that is participating actively in this group. History has shown us that a weak report can and will be savaged (it was kind of funny, after the ETRP was savaged by the public, the remaining PDP members came begging for my insights, which I graciously provided). [as an aside, don't expect me to do an "Atlas Shrugged" post in this PDP -- this time, I'm not in a minority of 1]
I'll conclude by saying to those who are "uncomfortable" by debate -- get used to it! Accept that weak positions and analysis will be challenged. Rather than attempting to stifle those challenges, come up with stronger arguments/facts.
Good night.
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
_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
Hi again, On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 12:44 PM, George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote:
with stats propped up with high counts of sub-$1 registrations, or even domains that are stuffed into the accounts of registrants of other TLDs (e.g. .xxx with NSI, or .kiwi).
Sorry, that was a typo. It should have been .XYZ with NSI, of course, not .XXX, e.g. http://www.dnjournal.com/archive/lowdown/2014/dailyposts/20140605.htm Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
George, I'm going to use an extreme example to illustrate my point. If 1,000,000 new gTLDs are launched in the next round, how many Sunrise registrations do think there should be order to reach the "success" threshold? Best, Claudio On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 12:50 PM George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote:
Hi again,
On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 12:44 PM, George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote:
with stats propped up with high counts of sub-$1 registrations, or even domains that are stuffed into the accounts of registrants of other TLDs (e.g. .xxx with NSI, or .kiwi).
Sorry, that was a typo. It should have been .XYZ with NSI, of course, not .XXX, e.g.
http://www.dnjournal.com/archive/lowdown/2014/dailyposts/20140605.htm
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
Claudio: Costs of a sunrise also scale as you increase the number of gTLDs. Are new gTLD registries paying on a per domain name (variable cost per domain name) only? Or are there fixed costs too? Are sunrise periods (which delay launch of GA) shorter, if there are more TLDs? Or are they fixed in length? Are there equal amounts of "good" domain names in those new gTLDs, or are the gamed sunrise domains representing a higher proportion of the "good" ones, as one scales? If 1,000,000 new gTLDs are launched, clearly any sunrise period is *pointless*, as TM holders are going to focus nearly entirely on *curative rights.* That was my point --- they're *already* doing that, shifting to curative rights, by decreasing their usage of sunrise periods. Thus, the costs of eliminating sunrise period are lower, because of that reduced usage (or, in other words, the benefits of retaining that sunrise period are low). That's why it's time to sunset/eliminate the sunrise period mandate -- it outlived its usefulness as a tool, as the numbers show. It's only there to "shear the sheep", so to speak (i.e. soak TM holders who are highly risk averse, and don't know any better; i.e. bad insurance, like the folks who buy those electronics "Extended Warranties"). As for those 1,000,000 new gTLDs, realize that if sunrise was eliminated, there'd also be 1,000,000 landrushes --- any brandholder that had coveted a name could still get it, on an equal playing field with everyone else, instead of jumping ahead of the line. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 1:24 PM, claudio di gangi <ipcdigangi@gmail.com> wrote:
George,
I'm going to use an extreme example to illustrate my point.
If 1,000,000 new gTLDs are launched in the next round, how many Sunrise registrations do think there should be order to reach the "success" threshold?
Best, Claudio
On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 12:50 PM George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote:
Hi again,
On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 12:44 PM, George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote:
with stats propped up with high counts of sub-$1 registrations, or even domains that are stuffed into the accounts of registrants of other TLDs (e.g. .xxx with NSI, or .kiwi).
Sorry, that was a typo. It should have been .XYZ with NSI, of course, not .XXX, e.g.
http://www.dnjournal.com/archive/lowdown/2014/dailyposts/20140605.htm
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
George, It appears you have concluded that the "success" of Sunrise is measured on the number of registrations on a per TLD basis, irrespective of the total number of Sunrise-eligible TLDs or the cost per Sunrise registration. At the same time, you cite to the 1 cent give-away domains in new gTLDs as evidence that cost does matter (along with usage, and other factors). I admit, I'm not clear on why you think cost matters in one context, but not the other. Hopefully, I've established that there are other ways of analyzing this topic that are not unreasonable. I suggest we continue the discussion on the Sunrise subteam, where these issues are being examined in closer detail. Thank you for your input and feedback. Best, Claudio On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 1:44 PM George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote:
Claudio:
Costs of a sunrise also scale as you increase the number of gTLDs. Are new gTLD registries paying on a per domain name (variable cost per domain name) only? Or are there fixed costs too? Are sunrise periods (which delay launch of GA) shorter, if there are more TLDs? Or are they fixed in length? Are there equal amounts of "good" domain names in those new gTLDs, or are the gamed sunrise domains representing a higher proportion of the "good" ones, as one scales?
If 1,000,000 new gTLDs are launched, clearly any sunrise period is *pointless*, as TM holders are going to focus nearly entirely on *curative rights.* That was my point --- they're *already* doing that, shifting to curative rights, by decreasing their usage of sunrise periods. Thus, the costs of eliminating sunrise period are lower, because of that reduced usage (or, in other words, the benefits of retaining that sunrise period are low).
That's why it's time to sunset/eliminate the sunrise period mandate -- it outlived its usefulness as a tool, as the numbers show. It's only there to "shear the sheep", so to speak (i.e. soak TM holders who are highly risk averse, and don't know any better; i.e. bad insurance, like the folks who buy those electronics "Extended Warranties").
As for those 1,000,000 new gTLDs, realize that if sunrise was eliminated, there'd also be 1,000,000 landrushes --- any brandholder that had coveted a name could still get it, on an equal playing field with everyone else, instead of jumping ahead of the line.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 1:24 PM, claudio di gangi <ipcdigangi@gmail.com> wrote:
George,
I'm going to use an extreme example to illustrate my point.
If 1,000,000 new gTLDs are launched in the next round, how many Sunrise registrations do think there should be order to reach the "success" threshold?
Best, Claudio
On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 12:50 PM George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote:
Hi again,
On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 12:44 PM, George Kirikos <icann@leap.com>
wrote:
with stats propped up with high counts of sub-$1 registrations, or even domains that are stuffed into the accounts of registrants of other TLDs (e.g. .xxx with NSI, or .kiwi).
Sorry, that was a typo. It should have been .XYZ with NSI, of course, not .XXX, e.g.
http://www.dnjournal.com/archive/lowdown/2014/dailyposts/20140605.htm
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
Hi George, Thoughts: * It makes sense the vast majority of nTLDs have low/no sunrise registrations as they're uptake has been low. * 64% of nTLDs have less than 1,000 registered domains * 85% have fewer than 10K registrations * All nTLDs are not created equal. It's no surprise nTLDs that are expensive, have limited applicability, and/or are similar to other extensions see fewer Sunrise registrations. * Sunrise registrations are affected by many factors in consideration by registrants at any given moment (the economy, cash-on-hand, marketing plans, life of the brand, etc.). In other words, just because we don't see Sunrise registrations booming across all nTLDs doesn't mean it isn't a valuable tool where it is applicable. It's rather like a product warranty: you may decide to cover everything, only what you can easily afford, or to skip it altogether. The fact that many people opt out of the warranty doesn't invalidate the concept. Sunrise is relatively simple and provides a reasonably effective initial bar to bad behavior. Rather than eliminating a feature that is often useful as a first measure of protection & not overly-burdensome, we should tweak Sunrise & move on. O: +1 81-ModernIP C: +1 818.209.6088 -----Original Message----- From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of George Kirikos Sent: Thursday, August 10, 2017 12:44 PM To: claudio di gangi <ipcdigangi@gmail.com> Cc: 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 Claudio: Costs of a sunrise also scale as you increase the number of gTLDs. Are new gTLD registries paying on a per domain name (variable cost per domain name) only? Or are there fixed costs too? Are sunrise periods (which delay launch of GA) shorter, if there are more TLDs? Or are they fixed in length? Are there equal amounts of "good" domain names in those new gTLDs, or are the gamed sunrise domains representing a higher proportion of the "good" ones, as one scales? If 1,000,000 new gTLDs are launched, clearly any sunrise period is *pointless*, as TM holders are going to focus nearly entirely on *curative rights.* That was my point --- they're *already* doing that, shifting to curative rights, by decreasing their usage of sunrise periods. Thus, the costs of eliminating sunrise period are lower, because of that reduced usage (or, in other words, the benefits of retaining that sunrise period are low). That's why it's time to sunset/eliminate the sunrise period mandate -- it outlived its usefulness as a tool, as the numbers show. It's only there to "shear the sheep", so to speak (i.e. soak TM holders who are highly risk averse, and don't know any better; i.e. bad insurance, like the folks who buy those electronics "Extended Warranties"). As for those 1,000,000 new gTLDs, realize that if sunrise was eliminated, there'd also be 1,000,000 landrushes --- any brandholder that had coveted a name could still get it, on an equal playing field with everyone else, instead of jumping ahead of the line. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 <http://www.leap.com/> http://www.leap.com/ On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 1:24 PM, claudio di gangi < <mailto:ipcdigangi@gmail.com> ipcdigangi@gmail.com> wrote:
George,
I'm going to use an extreme example to illustrate my point.
If 1,000,000 new gTLDs are launched in the next round, how many
Sunrise registrations do think there should be order to reach the "success"
threshold?
Best,
Claudio
On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 12:50 PM George Kirikos < <mailto:icann@leap.com> icann@leap.com> wrote:
Hi again,
On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 12:44 PM, George Kirikos < <mailto:icann@leap.com> icann@leap.com> wrote:
with stats propped up with high counts of sub-$1 registrations, or
even domains that are stuffed into the accounts of registrants of
other TLDs (e.g. .xxx with NSI, or .kiwi).
Sorry, that was a typo. It should have been .XYZ with NSI, of course,
not .XXX, e.g.
<http://www.dnjournal.com/archive/lowdown/2014/dailyposts/20140605.htm> http://www.dnjournal.com/archive/lowdown/2014/dailyposts/20140605.htm
Sincerely,
George Kirikos
416-588-0269
_______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________ 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
Building on Georges and Cynthia's very insightful analysis, please see this staff report on RPMs and the utilization of Sunrise in new gTLDs at: https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/reviews/rpm/draft-rpm-review-02feb15-en.pdf Some key take-aways of interest: Between Dec 13 to Dec 2014, there were 33,008 Sunrise transactions.
From my perspective, the fact these Sunrise registrations are spread over hundreds of gTLDs, may reflect less profit per registry, but does not change the net costs associated with the utilization of this RPM. In fact, since we do not know the price per Sunrise registration, the total costs are unknown (although can be estimated to some extent).
Note: this figure does not incorporate the costs associated with the voluntary blocking services purchased during this same 12 month period. As far as I am aware, this figure of over 30,000 domains represents one of the largest number of Sunrise registrations in gTLDs over a 12 month period, going back to 2001 (.info - 52,000). For context, in 2006, .mobi had around 15,000 (50% less than the 2014 totals). In 2008, .asia processed somewhere between 27,000-31,000 domains (their website references Sunrise 'applications' not registrations). In 2011, .XXX collected an estimated $13M for 80,000 blocks, but these are more akin to the DPML or the related blocking services. As an aside, from other sources (not the staff report), .porn and .adult totaled around 8,000 Sunrise registrations (in 2015), along with .sucks getting over 3,000 - making 2015 a banner year for Sunrise fees. The staff report also highlights various challenges faced by TM owners during Sunrise, including some that hinder the utilization rate, including: 1. The difficulty associated with identifying an eligible registrar for a particular TLD, suggesting that registries provide a list of accredited registrars on their websites. 2. Pricing being too expensive, including Premium Names. Suggestion for registries to publish list of premium names on its website. 3. SLD Block lists (associated with the name collision issue). One registrar informed the TM owner that 35 names were unavailable for registration. I hope you find this information helpful, and please let me know of any questions/comments. Have a nice weekend. Best, Claudio On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 12:47 PM Cyntia King <cking@modernip.com> wrote:
Hi George,
Thoughts:
- It makes sense the vast majority of nTLDs have low/no sunrise registrations as they’re uptake has been low. - 64% of nTLDs have less than 1,000 registered domains - 85% have fewer than 10K registrations - All nTLDs are not created equal. It’s no surprise nTLDs that are expensive, have limited applicability, and/or are similar to other extensions see fewer Sunrise registrations. - Sunrise registrations are affected by many factors in consideration by registrants at any given moment (the economy, cash-on-hand, marketing plans, life of the brand, etc.).
In other words, just because we don’t see Sunrise registrations booming across all nTLDs doesn’t mean it isn’t a valuable tool where it is applicable. It’s rather like a product warranty: you may decide to cover everything, only what you can easily afford, or to skip it altogether. The fact that many people opt out of the warranty doesn’t invalidate the concept.
Sunrise is relatively simple and provides a reasonably effective initial bar to bad behavior.
Rather than eliminating a feature that is often useful as a first measure of protection & not overly-burdensome, we should tweak Sunrise & move on.
O: +1 81-ModernIP
C: +1 818.209.6088
[image: MIP Composite (Email)]
-----Original Message----- From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of George Kirikos Sent: Thursday, August 10, 2017 12:44 PM To: claudio di gangi <ipcdigangi@gmail.com> Cc: 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
Claudio:
Costs of a sunrise also scale as you increase the number of gTLDs. Are new gTLD registries paying on a per domain name (variable cost per domain name) only? Or are there fixed costs too? Are sunrise periods (which delay launch of GA) shorter, if there are more TLDs? Or are they fixed in length? Are there equal amounts of "good" domain names in those new gTLDs, or are the gamed sunrise domains representing a higher proportion of the "good" ones, as one scales?
If 1,000,000 new gTLDs are launched, clearly any sunrise period is *pointless*, as TM holders are going to focus nearly entirely on *curative rights.* That was my point --- they're *already* doing that, shifting to curative rights, by decreasing their usage of sunrise periods. Thus, the costs of eliminating sunrise period are lower, because of that reduced usage (or, in other words, the benefits of retaining that sunrise period are low).
That's why it's time to sunset/eliminate the sunrise period mandate -- it outlived its usefulness as a tool, as the numbers show. It's only there to "shear the sheep", so to speak (i.e. soak TM holders who are highly risk averse, and don't know any better; i.e. bad insurance, like the folks who buy those electronics "Extended Warranties").
As for those 1,000,000 new gTLDs, realize that if sunrise was eliminated, there'd also be 1,000,000 landrushes --- any brandholder that had coveted a name could still get it, on an equal playing field with everyone else, instead of jumping ahead of the line.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos
416-588-0269
On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 1:24 PM, claudio di gangi <ipcdigangi@gmail.com> wrote:
George,
I'm going to use an extreme example to illustrate my point.
If 1,000,000 new gTLDs are launched in the next round, how many
Sunrise registrations do think there should be order to reach the "success"
threshold?
Best,
Claudio
On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 12:50 PM George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote:
Hi again,
On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 12:44 PM, George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote:
with stats propped up with high counts of sub-$1 registrations, or
even domains that are stuffed into the accounts of registrants of
other TLDs (e.g. .xxx with NSI, or .kiwi).
Sorry, that was a typo. It should have been .XYZ with NSI, of course,
not .XXX, e.g.
http://www.dnjournal.com/archive/lowdown/2014/dailyposts/20140605.htm
Sincerely,
George Kirikos
416-588-0269
_______________________________________________
gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org
_______________________________________________
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
Following on Claudio and Cyntia's emails, it's very significant that the New gTLDs are the first attempt at "narrowcasting" on a significant scale. That, in a sense, is one of the innovations (or at least, mutations) of the New gTLD Program. The first gTLDs were largely unconstrained or very broad in their appeal, or became almost unconstrained. Later attempts at "narrowcasting" on a small scale (.travel, .museum, .coop) were not particularly successful if you look at sheer numbers (and may not have been successful even within their niches, but that's another story). Given the different models, it's would be completely illogical to think that most New gTLDs would have anywhere near 15,000 sunrise registrations as .mobi did -- even before taking into account the maturation of approaches by brandowners and attorneys, and the folly of registering everything everywhere, when everywhere is hundreds of times larger than before. And even before taking into account that a new gTLD with 15000 registrations of any sort would be in the top 15% or so of all new gTLDs. I think this also points out the claim that there was a "99%+ reduction in Sunrise" is junk math and sophistry at best. A comparison between the average number of sunrise applications in the current environment and the total number of sunrises in a single TLD rollout 10+ years ago says a lot about the changing times, but doesn't even measure a "reduction" in anything. Speaking of changing times, once upon a time jazz was the most popular music in the US, filling the charts and selling out the biggest halls around. Now jazz is a niche art form and relatively speaking has a tiny overall share of the music scene. Following the original logic that started this whole discussion, and paraphrasing Shakespeare, I guess "The first thing we do, let's kill all the jazz musicians." Then we can toss their bodies next to all the books that were thrown out because libraries aren't "popular" enough for some people and they were all closed. Greg On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 3:32 PM, claudio di gangi <ipcdigangi@gmail.com> wrote:
Building on Georges and Cynthia's very insightful analysis, please see this staff report on RPMs and the utilization of Sunrise in new gTLDs at:
https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/reviews/rpm/draft-rpm-review-02feb15-en.pdf
Some key take-aways of interest:
Between Dec 13 to Dec 2014, there were 33,008 Sunrise transactions.
From my perspective, the fact these Sunrise registrations are spread over hundreds of gTLDs, may reflect less profit per registry, but does not change the net costs associated with the utilization of this RPM. In fact, since we do not know the price per Sunrise registration, the total costs are unknown (although can be estimated to some extent).
Note: this figure does not incorporate the costs associated with the voluntary blocking services purchased during this same 12 month period.
As far as I am aware, this figure of over 30,000 domains represents one of the largest number of Sunrise registrations in gTLDs over a 12 month period, going back to 2001 (.info - 52,000).
For context, in 2006, .mobi had around 15,000 (50% less than the 2014 totals). In 2008, .asia processed somewhere between 27,000-31,000 domains (their website references Sunrise 'applications' not registrations). In 2011, .XXX collected an estimated $13M for 80,000 blocks, but these are more akin to the DPML or the related blocking services.
As an aside, from other sources (not the staff report), .porn and .adult totaled around 8,000 Sunrise registrations (in 2015), along with .sucks getting over 3,000 - making 2015 a banner year for Sunrise fees.
The staff report also highlights various challenges faced by TM owners during Sunrise, including some that hinder the utilization rate, including:
1. The difficulty associated with identifying an eligible registrar for a particular TLD, suggesting that registries provide a list of accredited registrars on their websites.
2. Pricing being too expensive, including Premium Names. Suggestion for registries to publish list of premium names on its website.
3. SLD Block lists (associated with the name collision issue). One registrar informed the TM owner that 35 names were unavailable for registration.
I hope you find this information helpful, and please let me know of any questions/comments.
Have a nice weekend.
Best, Claudio
On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 12:47 PM Cyntia King <cking@modernip.com> wrote:
Hi George,
Thoughts:
- It makes sense the vast majority of nTLDs have low/no sunrise registrations as they’re uptake has been low. - 64% of nTLDs have less than 1,000 registered domains - 85% have fewer than 10K registrations - All nTLDs are not created equal. It’s no surprise nTLDs that are expensive, have limited applicability, and/or are similar to other extensions see fewer Sunrise registrations. - Sunrise registrations are affected by many factors in consideration by registrants at any given moment (the economy, cash-on-hand, marketing plans, life of the brand, etc.).
In other words, just because we don’t see Sunrise registrations booming across all nTLDs doesn’t mean it isn’t a valuable tool where it is applicable. It’s rather like a product warranty: you may decide to cover everything, only what you can easily afford, or to skip it altogether. The fact that many people opt out of the warranty doesn’t invalidate the concept.
Sunrise is relatively simple and provides a reasonably effective initial bar to bad behavior.
Rather than eliminating a feature that is often useful as a first measure of protection & not overly-burdensome, we should tweak Sunrise & move on.
O: +1 81-ModernIP
C: +1 818.209.6088 <(818)%20209-6088>
[image: MIP Composite (Email)]
-----Original Message----- From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of George Kirikos Sent: Thursday, August 10, 2017 12:44 PM To: claudio di gangi <ipcdigangi@gmail.com> Cc: 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
Claudio:
Costs of a sunrise also scale as you increase the number of gTLDs. Are new gTLD registries paying on a per domain name (variable cost per domain name) only? Or are there fixed costs too? Are sunrise periods (which delay launch of GA) shorter, if there are more TLDs? Or are they fixed in length? Are there equal amounts of "good" domain names in those new gTLDs, or are the gamed sunrise domains representing a higher proportion of the "good" ones, as one scales?
If 1,000,000 new gTLDs are launched, clearly any sunrise period is *pointless*, as TM holders are going to focus nearly entirely on *curative rights.* That was my point --- they're *already* doing that, shifting to curative rights, by decreasing their usage of sunrise periods. Thus, the costs of eliminating sunrise period are lower, because of that reduced usage (or, in other words, the benefits of retaining that sunrise period are low).
That's why it's time to sunset/eliminate the sunrise period mandate -- it outlived its usefulness as a tool, as the numbers show. It's only there to "shear the sheep", so to speak (i.e. soak TM holders who are highly risk averse, and don't know any better; i.e. bad insurance, like the folks who buy those electronics "Extended Warranties").
As for those 1,000,000 new gTLDs, realize that if sunrise was eliminated, there'd also be 1,000,000 landrushes --- any brandholder that had coveted a name could still get it, on an equal playing field with everyone else, instead of jumping ahead of the line.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos
416-588-0269 <(416)%20588-0269>
On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 1:24 PM, claudio di gangi <ipcdigangi@gmail.com> wrote:
George,
I'm going to use an extreme example to illustrate my point.
If 1,000,000 new gTLDs are launched in the next round, how many
Sunrise registrations do think there should be order to reach the "success"
threshold?
Best,
Claudio
On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 12:50 PM George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote:
Hi again,
On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 12:44 PM, George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote:
with stats propped up with high counts of sub-$1 registrations, or
even domains that are stuffed into the accounts of registrants of
other TLDs (e.g. .xxx with NSI, or .kiwi).
Sorry, that was a typo. It should have been .XYZ with NSI, of course,
not .XXX, e.g.
http://www.dnjournal.com/archive/lowdown/2014/dailyposts/20140605.htm
Sincerely,
George Kirikos
416-588-0269 <(416)%20588-0269>
_______________________________________________
gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org
_______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
Ill bite here. Answer: 0 (zero). Sunrise is not fit for its original purpose. Few legitimate trademarks are being submitted. There is evidence of abuse in sunrise registrations. More importantly, the notice process seems more than sufficient to address the legitimate concerns. Sent from my iPad
On 10 Aug 2017, at 19:25, claudio di gangi <ipcdigangi@gmail.com> wrote:
George,
I'm going to use an extreme example to illustrate my point.
If 1,000,000 new gTLDs are launched in the next round, how many Sunrise registrations do think there should be order to reach the "success" threshold?
Best, Claudio
On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 12:50 PM George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote: Hi again,
On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 12:44 PM, George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote:
with stats propped up with high counts of sub-$1 registrations, or even domains that are stuffed into the accounts of registrants of other TLDs (e.g. .xxx with NSI, or .kiwi).
Sorry, that was a typo. It should have been .XYZ with NSI, of course, not .XXX, e.g.
http://www.dnjournal.com/archive/lowdown/2014/dailyposts/20140605.htm
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
gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
George, I don't see the math that created your "talking point" of a "99%+ reduction in sunrise." Can you show your work please? I do think it's apropos that you compare this to the "success" (or lack thereof) of the new gTLD program as a whole. Sunrise is a part of the New gTLD Program, and if their performance is similarly "successful" in your estimation -- that's only to be expected. We can't expect Sunrise registrations to outperform the New gTLD Program generally. So, even if we buy your metrics of "success" (which I don't), a Sunrise program that is roughly as successful as the New gTLD Program as a whole is performing to expectations. I think that's a helpful way to look at Sunrise in context, so thank you for that. Greg On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 8:24 PM, Paul Keating <paul@law.es> wrote:
Ill bite here.
Answer: 0 (zero). Sunrise is not fit for its original purpose. Few legitimate trademarks are being submitted. There is evidence of abuse in sunrise registrations. More importantly, the notice process seems more than sufficient to address the legitimate concerns.
Sent from my iPad
On 10 Aug 2017, at 19:25, claudio di gangi <ipcdigangi@gmail.com> wrote:
George,
I'm going to use an extreme example to illustrate my point.
If 1,000,000 new gTLDs are launched in the next round, how many Sunrise registrations do think there should be order to reach the "success" threshold?
Best, Claudio
On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 12:50 PM George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote:
Hi again,
On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 12:44 PM, George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote:
with stats propped up with high counts of sub-$1 registrations, or even domains that are stuffed into the accounts of registrants of other TLDs (e.g. .xxx with NSI, or .kiwi).
Sorry, that was a typo. It should have been .XYZ with NSI, of course, not .XXX, e.g.
http://www.dnjournal.com/archive/lowdown/2014/dailyposts/20140605.htm
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 <(416)%20588-0269> http://www.leap.com/ _______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
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/
Paul, Thanks for your response. Just to clarify, the question is: how many Sunrise registrations are needed to justify having the mechanism in place? (See the subject line of this note) This question was presented in light of the proposition that we are seeing an insufficient number of Sunrise registrations per TLD. So if you think the answer is zero then we've met the threshold. Or are you answering a different question? On that basis, may I inquire which question you are answering? Best, Claudio On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 8:24 PM Paul Keating <paul@law.es> wrote:
Ill bite here.
Answer: 0 (zero). Sunrise is not fit for its original purpose. Few legitimate trademarks are being submitted. There is evidence of abuse in sunrise registrations. More importantly, the notice process seems more than sufficient to address the legitimate concerns.
Sent from my iPad
On 10 Aug 2017, at 19:25, claudio di gangi <ipcdigangi@gmail.com> wrote:
George,
I'm going to use an extreme example to illustrate my point.
If 1,000,000 new gTLDs are launched in the next round, how many Sunrise registrations do think there should be order to reach the "success" threshold?
Best, Claudio
On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 12:50 PM George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote:
Hi again,
On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 12:44 PM, George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote:
with stats propped up with high counts of sub-$1 registrations, or even domains that are stuffed into the accounts of registrants of other TLDs (e.g. .xxx with NSI, or .kiwi).
Sorry, that was a typo. It should have been .XYZ with NSI, of course, not .XXX, e.g.
http://www.dnjournal.com/archive/lowdown/2014/dailyposts/20140605.htm
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
_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
Hi folks, On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 12:44 PM, George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote:
Now, I don't give these examples to aggrandize myself,
I read some news yesterday about an important victory for free speech, and attempts at creating "new rights" that would apply to the internet that I think is worth sharing: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/08/california-court-appeal-overturns-dang... given that the EFF and Rebecca Tushnet were mentioned as being on the right side of this verdict with their amicus curiae. Since I don't like to aggrandize myself, let me give kudos to them! The same principles apply here with regards to expansionary rights of trademarks, beyond legal rights that exist offline. I'm glad that the EFF and Rebecca are participating in the same capacity here that they do in other venues. A position backed by PDP members with a long track record of "winning" should not be marginalized. I applaud their "amicus ICANN" work and contributions to this PDP. :-) Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
participants (5)
-
claudio di gangi -
Cyntia King -
George Kirikos -
Greg Shatan -
Paul Keating