Hi J. Scott, With respect, I see those PDFs as living documents that have been evolving over time, and continue to evolve as discussion has taken place on the calls and on this list. No formal data collection has even begun yet, otherwise why does the upcoming meeting address it as a "Sunrise data collection ****proposal*****" (emphasis added). That means it hasn't been finalized or decided. As to the statement concerning "a small minority refuse to accept that Sunrise registrations are here to stay", there's a formal active proposal to end the sunrise period. We should be collecting the data to answer that question, and not prejudge the outcome. I don't believe Jeremy has withdrawn that proposal. We're even collecting data on *expanding* and *extending* the protections for trademarks in sunrises (e.g. expanded matching as per Greg's set of different rules on how to have broad matches). That's the opposite of Jeremy's proposal. I haven't seen that proposal dropped, or prejudged. I'm keeping an open mind. Perhaps the evidence will show sunrises should continue, because the benefits exceed the costs. Perhaps the evidence will show otherwise. I think most good faith participants in this PDP are keeping an open mind, regardless of where they might initially be leaning. For many centuries, it was "obvious" that heavier objects fell faster than lighter objects. It was only until Galileo tested that commonly held belief that it was demonstrated to be false: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/bring-science-home-free-fall/ One doesn't arrive at the "truth" simply through argument and theory. Scientists do it by collecting data and through rigorous analysis, just as this PDP is supposed to do. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 5:17 PM, J. Scott Evans <jsevans@adobe.com> wrote:

We have a consensus list of data we are gathering. This list went through multiple iterations, all of which you were privy to. Given this reality, I (in my personal capacity) strongly object to expanding our list simply because you and a small minority refuse to accept that Sunrise registrations are here to stay. A better use of our time, is to focus on solutions to the problems identified with the system.

Sent from my iPhone

...

On Aug 15, 2017, at 1:48 PM, George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote:

Hi Mary,

Reviewing the two PDFs, can you incorporate some of the additional potential data sources/research related to sunrise that were discussed on the mailing list this past week? Namely:

1. Whether sunrise-registered domains (defensive registrations) are associated with a reduction in value-added services (SSL, SEO, webdesign, hosting, etc.) relative to non-sunrise registrations, as per email:

https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org...

Data sources could include surveys of "retail" consumer-facing registrars such (GoDaddy, Endurance, etc.) and/or their reseller channels/networks (value-added partners).

This goes to the question of weighing the costs/benefits of sunrises (i.e. focusing on the "costs" to other competing entities who could have used those domain names for more than just defensive registrations, but were denied equal access to those domains).

2. Legal searches (Westlaw, USPTO cases, etc.) to find whether any examples of "genericide" have been related to unauthorized domain name registrations (cybersquatting). See point #1(c) of:

https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org...

rebutting the assertion that sunrises are required because trademark owners "Must protect their TMs or risk having them cancelled"

Presumably no one challenged that assertion when creating the sunrises for the RPMs. Let's look at actual data/statistics, to see whether the risk was actually real or not. If few/no such cases exist, then that's evidence that the risk is minimal or zero.

3. To measure "costs" of the sunrise period in terms of depriving that registry of "oxygen" through a reduction of active sites found "in the wild", perhaps do a statistical study on registry growth rates and their relationship to sunrise size. See discussion between Volker and myself at:

https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org... https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org... https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org...

[John McCormac of HosterStats mentioned to me outside this list the example of the large .xxx sunrise too, where large swaths of unused domains might have hampered its future growth] A statistical study could examine this more scientifically and rigorously, rather than just relying on anecdotes and personal observations.

4. For the list of domain name industry blogs (document point #6) where sunrises were discussed and where data was shared, a good starting point would be the list at:

https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.domaini...

(and then check each individual blog, e.g. TheDomains.com, DNW.com, DomainInvesting.com, DomainIncite.com, OnlineDomain.com, CircleID.com and many others)

Some of these blogs offer "sponsored posts", which might be worth considering to solicit feedback or help with public outreach on the various surveys that are planned.

Sincerely,

George Kirikos 416-588-0269 https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.leap.com...

...

On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 2:17 PM, Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org> wrote: Hello everyone,

The proposed agenda for our next Working Group call, scheduled for this Wednesday 16 August at 1700 UTC, is as follows:

Roll call (via Adobe Connect and phone bridge only); updates to Statements of Interest Review updated, more targeted Sunrise data collection proposal (based on the Working Group discussion on 9 August call) Review initial collated draft proposal for data collection on Trademark Claims Next steps/next meeting

For Agenda Item #2, you can see from the attached document that we have reorganized the multiple data collection tasks (previously listed according to the corresponding Sunrise Charter question) into three main groupings: (I) tasks that staff can initiate immediately; (II) topics organized by format (mostly surveys) and target group (e.g. ICANN stakeholder groups, external communities); and (III) topics that are likely to require professional assistance. Although we are asking for overall review and comments on the entire document, the bullets in Group (II), starting on Page 2, are where Working Group input is most needed.

For Agenda Item #3, we have based the initial proposal (attached) on the same format as was used last week for the initial Sunrise data gathering discussion. You will see that, as with Sunrise, there are quite a few overlapping suggestions for format (e.g. survey), target groups, and reliance on professional resources. You will see also that it may make sense in some cases to combine the data request for Sunrise and Claims.

Staff is continuing to work with the Working Group co-chairs to prepare a combined data and metrics resource request for the GNSO Council, in respect of all data collection suggestions that the Working Group agrees can benefit from professional assistance. Your feedback on Agenda Item #3 will therefore be very helpful, as it was for Sunrise.

We will post both documents on the Working Group wiki space ahead of the Wednesday call as well.

Thanks and cheers

Mary

From: <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Amr Elsadr <amr.elsadr@icann.org> Date: Friday, August 11, 2017 at 17:24 To: "gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] Action Items - GNSO Review of All RPMs in All gTLD PDP WG Call - 9 August 2017

Dear Working Group Members,

Apologies about the delay in delivery, but below are the action items from Wednesday’s WG call. The action items, notes, meeting materials, recordings and transcripts have all also been posted on the meeting’s wiki page here: https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fcommunity.i...].

Thanks.

Amr

Action Items:

Staff to identify what data collection efforts will require surveys being conducted using professional assistance, and prepare a proposal to seek this assistance for conducting surveys, and share with the co-chairs prior to sharing with the WG and GNSO Council for their consideration Staff to begin conducting a LexisNexis search for articles resulting from investigative reporting on domains registered during Sunrise that have been noted to have an impact on free expression, fair use, and the ability of registrants to register domains, and share results with the WG Staff to identify which contracted parties are publicly traded, so that WG is aware that their annual reports should be publicly available in compliance with SEC regulations Staff to identify what data is already currently available, and report this to the co-chairs on Friday – staff should begin collection of this data immediately

_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.or...

---

gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.or...

Hi Mary, I don't recall seeing any "final" call for questions/datasources to the entire group. Indeed, last week's call was the first time the public company financials was identified as a possible source of data. That couldn't have been "approved", given it hadn't been circulated to the broader mailing list until this most recent version of the *draft* document (2 days ago), i.e. it's never been finalized by the entire group yet. Same for the TMCH stuff of today (the second PDF) which only referenced URS cases, and not UDRP. That's still a living document too that is being reviewed and adjusted based on feedback from the group. So, I don't see how the discussions and data sources of the past week on the mailing list (and today's call, and future discussions) are not being incorporated into these living documents, until such time as they're all finalized by a more formal group consensus on final draft documents. I'm not suggesting they be *unilaterally* included on my suggestion alone, but they should be on equal footing with all the other proposed data sources until such time as the entire group decides which proposed sources to go for, and which to not obtain. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 12:56 PM, Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org> wrote:

Hello George and everyone,

This note is just to clarify that the current documents contain the data collection suggestions that were first developed in the Sub Teams, and then discussed by the full Working Group. The staff understanding is that any new or additional data suggestions will be added only if they have been discussed and/or agreed to by the Working Group.

Thanks and cheers Mary

On 8/15/17, 17:42, "gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org on behalf of George Kirikos" <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org on behalf of icann@leap.com> wrote:

Hi J. Scott,

With respect, I see those PDFs as living documents that have been evolving over time, and continue to evolve as discussion has taken place on the calls and on this list. No formal data collection has even begun yet, otherwise why does the upcoming meeting address it as a "Sunrise data collection ****proposal*****" (emphasis added). That means it hasn't been finalized or decided.

As to the statement concerning "a small minority refuse to accept that Sunrise registrations are here to stay", there's a formal active proposal to end the sunrise period. We should be collecting the data to answer that question, and not prejudge the outcome. I don't believe Jeremy has withdrawn that proposal.

We're even collecting data on *expanding* and *extending* the protections for trademarks in sunrises (e.g. expanded matching as per Greg's set of different rules on how to have broad matches). That's the opposite of Jeremy's proposal. I haven't seen that proposal dropped, or prejudged.

I'm keeping an open mind. Perhaps the evidence will show sunrises should continue, because the benefits exceed the costs. Perhaps the evidence will show otherwise. I think most good faith participants in this PDP are keeping an open mind, regardless of where they might initially be leaning.

For many centuries, it was "obvious" that heavier objects fell faster than lighter objects. It was only until Galileo tested that commonly held belief that it was demonstrated to be false:

https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.scientificamerican....

One doesn't arrive at the "truth" simply through argument and theory. Scientists do it by collecting data and through rigorous analysis, just as this PDP is supposed to do.

Sincerely,

George Kirikos 416-588-0269 https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.leap.com_&d=DwIGaQ&c...

On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 5:17 PM, J. Scott Evans <jsevans@adobe.com> wrote: > We have a consensus list of data we are gathering. This list went through multiple iterations, all of which you were privy to. Given this reality, I (in my personal capacity) strongly object to expanding our list simply because you and a small minority refuse to accept that Sunrise registrations are here to stay. A better use of our time, is to focus on solutions to the problems identified with the system. > > > > Sent from my iPhone > >> On Aug 15, 2017, at 1:48 PM, George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote: >> >> Hi Mary, >> >> Reviewing the two PDFs, can you incorporate some of the additional >> potential data sources/research related to sunrise that were discussed >> on the mailing list this past week? Namely: >> >> 1. Whether sunrise-registered domains (defensive registrations) are >> associated with a reduction in value-added services (SSL, SEO, >> webdesign, hosting, etc.) relative to non-sunrise registrations, as >> per email: >> >> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.protecti... >> >> Data sources could include surveys of "retail" consumer-facing >> registrars such (GoDaddy, Endurance, etc.) and/or their reseller >> channels/networks (value-added partners). >> >> This goes to the question of weighing the costs/benefits of sunrises >> (i.e. focusing on the "costs" to other competing entities who could >> have used those domain names for more than just defensive >> registrations, but were denied equal access to those domains). >> >> 2. Legal searches (Westlaw, USPTO cases, etc.) to find whether any >> examples of "genericide" have been related to unauthorized domain name >> registrations (cybersquatting). See point #1(c) of: >> >> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.protecti... >> >> rebutting the assertion that sunrises are required because trademark >> owners "Must protect their TMs or risk having them cancelled" >> >> Presumably no one challenged that assertion when creating the sunrises >> for the RPMs. Let's look at actual data/statistics, to see whether the >> risk was actually real or not. If few/no such cases exist, then that's >> evidence that the risk is minimal or zero. >> >> 3. To measure "costs" of the sunrise period in terms of depriving that >> registry of "oxygen" through a reduction of active sites found "in the >> wild", perhaps do a statistical study on registry growth rates and >> their relationship to sunrise size. See discussion between Volker and >> myself at: >> >> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.protecti... >> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.protecti... >> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.protecti... >> >> [John McCormac of HosterStats mentioned to me outside this list the >> example of the large .xxx sunrise too, where large swaths of unused >> domains might have hampered its future growth] A statistical study >> could examine this more scientifically and rigorously, rather than >> just relying on anecdotes and personal observations. >> >> 4. For the list of domain name industry blogs (document point #6) >> where sunrises were discussed and where data was shared, a good >> starting point would be the list at: >> >> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.protecti... >> >> (and then check each individual blog, e.g. TheDomains.com, DNW.com, >> DomainInvesting.com, DomainIncite.com, OnlineDomain.com, CircleID.com >> and many others) >> >> Some of these blogs offer "sponsored posts", which might be worth >> considering to solicit feedback or help with public outreach on the >> various surveys that are planned. >> >> Sincerely, >> >> George Kirikos >> 416-588-0269 >> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.protecti... >> >> >> >>> On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 2:17 PM, Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org> wrote: >>> Hello everyone, >>> >>> >>> >>> The proposed agenda for our next Working Group call, scheduled for this >>> Wednesday 16 August at 1700 UTC, is as follows: >>> >>> >>> >>> Roll call (via Adobe Connect and phone bridge only); updates to Statements >>> of Interest >>> Review updated, more targeted Sunrise data collection proposal (based on the >>> Working Group discussion on 9 August call) >>> Review initial collated draft proposal for data collection on Trademark >>> Claims >>> Next steps/next meeting >>> >>> >>> >>> For Agenda Item #2, you can see from the attached document that we have >>> reorganized the multiple data collection tasks (previously listed according >>> to the corresponding Sunrise Charter question) into three main groupings: >>> (I) tasks that staff can initiate immediately; (II) topics organized by >>> format (mostly surveys) and target group (e.g. ICANN stakeholder groups, >>> external communities); and (III) topics that are likely to require >>> professional assistance. Although we are asking for overall review and >>> comments on the entire document, the bullets in Group (II), starting on Page >>> 2, are where Working Group input is most needed. >>> >>> >>> >>> For Agenda Item #3, we have based the initial proposal (attached) on the >>> same format as was used last week for the initial Sunrise data gathering >>> discussion. You will see that, as with Sunrise, there are quite a few >>> overlapping suggestions for format (e.g. survey), target groups, and >>> reliance on professional resources. You will see also that it may make sense >>> in some cases to combine the data request for Sunrise and Claims. >>> >>> >>> >>> Staff is continuing to work with the Working Group co-chairs to prepare a >>> combined data and metrics resource request for the GNSO Council, in respect >>> of all data collection suggestions that the Working Group agrees can benefit >>> from professional assistance. Your feedback on Agenda Item #3 will therefore >>> be very helpful, as it was for Sunrise. >>> >>> >>> We will post both documents on the Working Group wiki space ahead of the >>> Wednesday call as well. >>> >>> >>> >>> Thanks and cheers >>> >>> Mary >>> >>> >>> >>> From: <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Amr Elsadr >>> <amr.elsadr@icann.org> >>> Date: Friday, August 11, 2017 at 17:24 >>> To: "gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> >>> Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] Action Items - GNSO Review of All RPMs in All gTLD >>> PDP WG Call - 9 August 2017 >>> >>> >>> >>> Dear Working Group Members, >>> >>> >>> >>> Apologies about the delay in delivery, but below are the action items from >>> Wednesday’s WG call. The action items, notes, meeting materials, recordings >>> and transcripts have all also been posted on the meeting’s wiki page here: >>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.protecti... ]. >>> >>> >>> >>> Thanks. >>> >>> >>> >>> Amr >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Action Items: >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Staff to identify what data collection efforts will require surveys being >>> conducted using professional assistance, and prepare a proposal to seek this >>> assistance for conducting surveys, and share with the co-chairs prior to >>> sharing with the WG and GNSO Council for their consideration >>> Staff to begin conducting a LexisNexis search for articles resulting from >>> investigative reporting on domains registered during Sunrise that have been >>> noted to have an impact on free expression, fair use, and the ability of >>> registrants to register domains, and share results with the WG >>> Staff to identify which contracted parties are publicly traded, so that WG >>> is aware that their annual reports should be publicly available in >>> compliance with SEC regulations >>> Staff to identify what data is already currently available, and report this >>> to the co-chairs on Friday – staff should begin collection of this data >>> immediately >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> gnso-rpm-wg mailing list >>> gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org >>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.protecti... >> _______________________________________________ >> gnso-rpm-wg mailing list >> gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org >> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.protecti... _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg