FOR REVIEW & DISCUSSION: Draft collated proposal for Sunrise-related data collection
Dear all, For the Working Group call this Wednesday, please find attached a draft proposal for a possible approach and suggested methodologies toward collecting the requested data for the Sunrise RPM. As you review the draft document in preparation for the upcoming call, please note the following: * The Working Group co-chairs have not had a chance to review the draft fully; as such, the document is a staff draft that reflects what we believe may be a practicable approach in each case (including possibly combining several suggestions). Where applicable, we have also added some comments (in the second and third columns) that include questions for either the co-chairs’ or the Working Group’s decisions. * The document includes in full all the data collection suggestions that were submitted to the Working Group. * We have begun preparing a similar collated document for Trademark Claims, and have also started looking at currently available sources (e.g. ICANN’s New gTLD Startup Page) to see what staff can begin to put together for this effort. Please also note the following outstanding action items from the past few Working Group calls: * Requested as due by today: Working Group feedback on initial discussion of the Sunrise Preamble questions (from the call last week) – transcript, recording, notes and the updated Sunrise document are available at https://community.icann.org/x/vQchB. * Feedback requested: the current set of Trademark Claims Charter questions, as refined by the Working Group – please see the document dated 20 July on this wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/c3vwAw (unless directed otherwise, staff will keep this document open for another week for comments). * Feedback requested: an updated set of Sunrise Charter questions, as refined by the Working Group and consequently updated by staff and the Sunrise Sub Team – please see the document dated 27 July on this wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/vQchB (unless directed otherwise, staff will keep this document open for another week for comments). Thanks and cheers Mary From: Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org> Date: Friday, August 4, 2017 at 16:03 To: Amr Elsadr <amr.elsadr@icann.org>, "gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: FOLLOW UP on Action Items - GNSO Review of all RPMs in all gTLDs PDP WG Call - 3 August 2017 Dear all, This message follows up on the first Action Item noted by Amr (below), i.e. staff to circulate documentation on the “proof of use” requirement. We hope the following links and notes, provided in chronological order of their publication, are helpful. April 2011: Explanatory Memorandum from ICANN noting the introduction of the “proof of use” requirement in Version 6 of the Applicant Guidebook (AGB) * This clarifies that the introduction of this element was a result of Board consideration of GAC advice that all trademarks from all jurisdictions should be treated equally; see Pages 4-7 of the Memorandum: https://archive.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/trademark-protection-claims-us.... October 2011-September 2012: Discussions within the Implementation Advisory Group (IAG) * The IAG discussed methods of implementing the “proof of use” requirement, framed by the following business requirements and elements: “(1) Protect the existing legal rights of registered mark holders (2) Limit creation of new requirements affecting trademark holders (3) Ensure financial and operational feasibility (4) Avoid imposing a role for the clearinghouse that is inconsistent with the role agreed upon by the community (5) Establish a standard that is globally accessible (6) Avoid unfair prejudice in favor of or against any particular TM holder A single standard should be applicable across all jurisdictions, to avoid confusion and to provide service to users across the globe. A process that minimizes subjective reviews by the Clearinghouse will serve this goal and will also help to minimize the costs for Clearinghouse users.” * Note that Pages 31-35 of the Summary of IAG Input document includes additional comments by individual IAG members that may be helpful to our Working Group’s review of this topic: https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/about/trademark-clearinghouse/summary-iag-inpu... November 2013: TMCH Guidelines updated by Deloitte * In addition to setting out examples of acceptable evidence of use, the Guidelines state that TMCH verification of samples submitted by a TM holder is to ensure that “the sample submitted is a sample that evidences an effort on behalf of the trademark holder to communicate to a consumer so that the consumer can distinguish the product or services of one from those of another” (see Pages 32-33 of the TMCH Guidelines: http://www.trademark-clearinghouse.com/sites/default/files/files/downloads/T....) * Note that if a TM agent is used to submit marks to the TMCH, the TM holder has to sign a declaration for proof of use, which provides in part that the information is “to the best of [the TM holder’s] knowledge, complete and accurate, that the trademarks set forth in this submission are currently in use in the manner set forth in the accompanying specimen, in connection with the class of goods or services specified when this submission was made” (see http://www.trademark-clearinghouse.com/sites/default/files/files/downloads/P...). September 2015: Staff Paper on RPMs, reviewing data and community input to inform the GNSO Issue Report preceding this PDP * The paper clarifies that the “proof of use” requirement is “intended to ensure that only holders of marks that demonstrate “use” are given the exclusionary right of Sunrise eligibility, in order to prevent abuses and provide equal treatment to all rights holders. This requirement is intended to benefit trademark holders in that it helps a trademark holder that has truly used its mark to identify and distinguish its products or services from others.” Pages 42 and 52 of the Paper contain a brief summary of the community input relating to how this requirement has been implemented by the TMCH: http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/reviews/rpm/rpm-review-11sep15-en.pdf. * The full text of all public comments received on the draft version of the Staff Paper can be retrieved here: https://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-rpm-review-02feb15/; those comments relevant to “proof of use” were summarized on Pages 7-10 of the Staff Summary of Public Comments: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/report-comments-rpm-review-29may.... If we may, staff would like also to take this opportunity to remind those members who have not had a chance to review the relevant historical documentation to try to do so, in particular the 2015 Staff RPM Paper linked above, as the questions and community input may be helpful in providing additional background to our Working Group’s review of each individual RPM from the 2012 New gTLD Program round. Thanks and cheers Mary From: <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Amr Elsadr <amr.elsadr@icann.org> Date: Friday, August 4, 2017 at 13:40 To: "gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] Action Items - GNSO Review of all RPMs in all gTLDs PDP WG Call - 3 August 2017 Dear Working Group Members, Below are the action items from the WG call on 3 August 2017. The action items, notes, meeting document, recording and transcripts have been posted to the meeting’s wiki page here: https://community.icann.org/x/vQchB[community.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_vQchB&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=ntqjQHg5GhkKtNKIyp8vjAMncANDEG058VjnIGYnNAY&s=uzlXUpo4O2Ntdl-vRCqKNDwPB-n8cgxhZZwZs8kSoow&e=> Thanks. Amr Action Items: 1. Staff to circulate existing documentation on proof-of-use required for eligibility to participate in Sunrise Registration including documentation made available by the TMCH, in addition to comments offered by the community on the extent to which the current practice by the TMCH is, or is not consistent with the intended proof-of-use standards (presented in the staff paper reviewing the RPMs in preparation for this PDP) 2. Staff to request WG members’ feedback on the mailing list, regarding the Preamble questions about whether abuses of Sunrise registration periods have been documented by different stakeholders – WG members to submit feedback by 7 August COB
Hi Mary, all, Regarding the request for feedback on initial discussion of the Sunrise Preamble questions, I am not sure if this is what you were after, but my feedback is that the suggestion/question that there should be a presumption that a trademark owner should be required to show that it can win a UDRP to use the Sunrise process should be stricken. Not only does this idea neglect to account for trademark co-existence across classes and jurisdictions, but it fails to accommodate use of domain names corresponding to dictionary terms (i.e., Apple would not win a UDRP (or court case) if a domain name apple.whatever is used to extol the virtues of the fruit). Put another way, this would all but eliminate Sunrises. Rather, I suggest we look at efficient ways to challenge any observed abuses of the TMCH and Sunrise. Finally, the suggestion that Sunrises may not be meeting their intended purpose due to low uptake statistically-speaking (also as to documented abuses) seems to widely miss the mark. As J Scott and others pointed out on the call, the intended purpose is to provide an opportunity to get ahead of infringing registrations. Whether that opportunity is taken up by a brand owner is an altogether separate question. Best regards, Brian From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mary Wong Sent: Monday, August 07, 2017 5:13 PM To: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] FOR REVIEW & DISCUSSION: Draft collated proposal for Sunrise-related data collection Dear all, For the Working Group call this Wednesday, please find attached a draft proposal for a possible approach and suggested methodologies toward collecting the requested data for the Sunrise RPM. As you review the draft document in preparation for the upcoming call, please note the following: * The Working Group co-chairs have not had a chance to review the draft fully; as such, the document is a staff draft that reflects what we believe may be a practicable approach in each case (including possibly combining several suggestions). Where applicable, we have also added some comments (in the second and third columns) that include questions for either the co-chairs’ or the Working Group’s decisions. * The document includes in full all the data collection suggestions that were submitted to the Working Group. * We have begun preparing a similar collated document for Trademark Claims, and have also started looking at currently available sources (e.g. ICANN’s New gTLD Startup Page) to see what staff can begin to put together for this effort. Please also note the following outstanding action items from the past few Working Group calls: * Requested as due by today: Working Group feedback on initial discussion of the Sunrise Preamble questions (from the call last week) – transcript, recording, notes and the updated Sunrise document are available at https://community.icann.org/x/vQchB. * Feedback requested: the current set of Trademark Claims Charter questions, as refined by the Working Group – please see the document dated 20 July on this wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/c3vwAw (unless directed otherwise, staff will keep this document open for another week for comments). * Feedback requested: an updated set of Sunrise Charter questions, as refined by the Working Group and consequently updated by staff and the Sunrise Sub Team – please see the document dated 27 July on this wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/vQchB (unless directed otherwise, staff will keep this document open for another week for comments). Thanks and cheers Mary From: Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>> Date: Friday, August 4, 2017 at 16:03 To: Amr Elsadr <amr.elsadr@icann.org<mailto:amr.elsadr@icann.org>>, "gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>> Subject: FOLLOW UP on Action Items - GNSO Review of all RPMs in all gTLDs PDP WG Call - 3 August 2017 Dear all, This message follows up on the first Action Item noted by Amr (below), i.e. staff to circulate documentation on the “proof of use” requirement. We hope the following links and notes, provided in chronological order of their publication, are helpful. April 2011: Explanatory Memorandum from ICANN noting the introduction of the “proof of use” requirement in Version 6 of the Applicant Guidebook (AGB) * This clarifies that the introduction of this element was a result of Board consideration of GAC advice that all trademarks from all jurisdictions should be treated equally; see Pages 4-7 of the Memorandum: https://archive.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/trademark-protection-claims-us.... October 2011-September 2012: Discussions within the Implementation Advisory Group (IAG) * The IAG discussed methods of implementing the “proof of use” requirement, framed by the following business requirements and elements: “(1) Protect the existing legal rights of registered mark holders (2) Limit creation of new requirements affecting trademark holders (3) Ensure financial and operational feasibility (4) Avoid imposing a role for the clearinghouse that is inconsistent with the role agreed upon by the community (5) Establish a standard that is globally accessible (6) Avoid unfair prejudice in favor of or against any particular TM holder A single standard should be applicable across all jurisdictions, to avoid confusion and to provide service to users across the globe. A process that minimizes subjective reviews by the Clearinghouse will serve this goal and will also help to minimize the costs for Clearinghouse users.” * Note that Pages 31-35 of the Summary of IAG Input document includes additional comments by individual IAG members that may be helpful to our Working Group’s review of this topic: https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/about/trademark-clearinghouse/summary-iag-inpu... November 2013: TMCH Guidelines updated by Deloitte * In addition to setting out examples of acceptable evidence of use, the Guidelines state that TMCH verification of samples submitted by a TM holder is to ensure that “the sample submitted is a sample that evidences an effort on behalf of the trademark holder to communicate to a consumer so that the consumer can distinguish the product or services of one from those of another” (see Pages 32-33 of the TMCH Guidelines: http://www.trademark-clearinghouse.com/sites/default/files/files/downloads/T....) * Note that if a TM agent is used to submit marks to the TMCH, the TM holder has to sign a declaration for proof of use, which provides in part that the information is “to the best of [the TM holder’s] knowledge, complete and accurate, that the trademarks set forth in this submission are currently in use in the manner set forth in the accompanying specimen, in connection with the class of goods or services specified when this submission was made” (see http://www.trademark-clearinghouse.com/sites/default/files/files/downloads/P...). September 2015: Staff Paper on RPMs, reviewing data and community input to inform the GNSO Issue Report preceding this PDP * The paper clarifies that the “proof of use” requirement is “intended to ensure that only holders of marks that demonstrate “use” are given the exclusionary right of Sunrise eligibility, in order to prevent abuses and provide equal treatment to all rights holders. This requirement is intended to benefit trademark holders in that it helps a trademark holder that has truly used its mark to identify and distinguish its products or services from others.” Pages 42 and 52 of the Paper contain a brief summary of the community input relating to how this requirement has been implemented by the TMCH: http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/reviews/rpm/rpm-review-11sep15-en.pdf. * The full text of all public comments received on the draft version of the Staff Paper can be retrieved here: https://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-rpm-review-02feb15/; those comments relevant to “proof of use” were summarized on Pages 7-10 of the Staff Summary of Public Comments: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/report-comments-rpm-review-29may.... If we may, staff would like also to take this opportunity to remind those members who have not had a chance to review the relevant historical documentation to try to do so, in particular the 2015 Staff RPM Paper linked above, as the questions and community input may be helpful in providing additional background to our Working Group’s review of each individual RPM from the 2012 New gTLD Program round. Thanks and cheers Mary From: <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Amr Elsadr <amr.elsadr@icann.org<mailto:amr.elsadr@icann.org>> Date: Friday, August 4, 2017 at 13:40 To: "gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>> Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] Action Items - GNSO Review of all RPMs in all gTLDs PDP WG Call - 3 August 2017 Dear Working Group Members, Below are the action items from the WG call on 3 August 2017. The action items, notes, meeting document, recording and transcripts have been posted to the meeting’s wiki page here: https://community.icann.org/x/vQchB[community.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_vQchB&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=ntqjQHg5GhkKtNKIyp8vjAMncANDEG058VjnIGYnNAY&s=uzlXUpo4O2Ntdl-vRCqKNDwPB-n8cgxhZZwZs8kSoow&e=> Thanks. Amr Action Items: 1. Staff to circulate existing documentation on proof-of-use required for eligibility to participate in Sunrise Registration including documentation made available by the TMCH, in addition to comments offered by the community on the extent to which the current practice by the TMCH is, or is not consistent with the intended proof-of-use standards (presented in the staff paper reviewing the RPMs in preparation for this PDP) 2. Staff to request WG members’ feedback on the mailing list, regarding the Preamble questions about whether abuses of Sunrise registration periods have been documented by different stakeholders – WG members to submit feedback by 7 August COB
I agree with Brian on this. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 8:47 AM, Beckham, Brian <brian.beckham@wipo.int> wrote:
Hi Mary, all,
Regarding the request for feedback on initial discussion of the Sunrise Preamble questions, I am not sure if this is what you were after, but my feedback is that the suggestion/question that there should be a presumption that a trademark owner should be required to show that it can win a UDRP to use the Sunrise process should be stricken.
Not only does this idea neglect to account for trademark co-existence across classes and jurisdictions, but it fails to accommodate use of domain names corresponding to dictionary terms (i.e., Apple would not win a UDRP (or court case) if a domain name apple.whatever is used to extol the virtues of the fruit). Put another way, this would all but eliminate Sunrises.
Rather, I suggest we look at efficient ways to challenge any observed abuses of the TMCH and Sunrise.
Finally, the suggestion that Sunrises may not be meeting their intended purpose due to low uptake statistically-speaking (also as to documented abuses) seems to widely miss the mark. As J Scott and others pointed out on the call, the intended purpose is *to provide an opportunity* to get ahead of infringing registrations. Whether that opportunity is taken up by a brand owner is an altogether separate question.
Best regards,
Brian
*From:* gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@ icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Mary Wong *Sent:* Monday, August 07, 2017 5:13 PM *To:* gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org *Subject:* [gnso-rpm-wg] FOR REVIEW & DISCUSSION: Draft collated proposal for Sunrise-related data collection
Dear all,
For the Working Group call this Wednesday, please find attached a draft proposal for a possible approach and suggested methodologies toward collecting the requested data for the Sunrise RPM. As you review the draft document in preparation for the upcoming call, please note the following:
- The Working Group co-chairs have not had a chance to review the draft fully; as such, the document is a staff draft that reflects what we believe may be a practicable approach in each case (including possibly combining several suggestions). Where applicable, we have also added some comments (in the second and third columns) that include questions for either the co-chairs’ or the Working Group’s decisions.
- The document includes in full all the data collection suggestions that were submitted to the Working Group.
- We have begun preparing a similar collated document for Trademark Claims, and have also started looking at currently available sources (e.g. ICANN’s New gTLD Startup Page) to see what staff can begin to put together for this effort.
Please also note the following outstanding action items from the past few Working Group calls:
- Requested as *due by today*: Working Group feedback on initial discussion of the Sunrise Preamble questions (from the call last week) – transcript, recording, notes and the updated Sunrise document are available at https://community.icann.org/x/vQchB.
- Feedback requested: the current set of Trademark Claims Charter questions, as refined by the Working Group – please see the document dated 20 July on this wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/c3vwAw (unless directed otherwise, staff will keep this document open for another week for comments).
- Feedback requested: an updated set of Sunrise Charter questions, as refined by the Working Group and consequently updated by staff and the Sunrise Sub Team – please see the document dated 27 July on this wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/vQchB <https://community.icann.org/x/vQchB> (unless directed otherwise, staff will keep this document open for another week for comments).
Thanks and cheers
Mary
*From: *Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org> *Date: *Friday, August 4, 2017 at 16:03 *To: *Amr Elsadr <amr.elsadr@icann.org>, "gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org" < gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> *Subject: *FOLLOW UP on Action Items - GNSO Review of all RPMs in all gTLDs PDP WG Call - 3 August 2017
Dear all,
This message follows up on the first Action Item noted by Amr (below), i.e. staff to circulate documentation on the “proof of use” requirement. We hope the following links and notes, provided in chronological order of their publication, are helpful.
*April 2011: Explanatory Memorandum from ICANN noting the introduction of the “proof of use” requirement in Version 6 of the Applicant Guidebook (AGB)*
- This clarifies that the introduction of this element was a result of Board consideration of GAC advice that all trademarks from all jurisdictions should be treated equally; see Pages 4-7 of the Memorandum: https://archive.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/trademark- protection-claims-use-15apr11-en.pdf <https://archive.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/trademark-protection-claims-us...>.
*October 2011-September 2012: Discussions within the Implementation Advisory Group (IAG)*
- The IAG discussed methods of implementing the “proof of use” requirement, framed by the following business requirements and elements:
*“(1) Protect the existing legal rights of registered mark holders*
*(2) Limit creation of new requirements affecting trademark holders*
*(3) Ensure financial and operational feasibility*
*(4) Avoid imposing a role for the clearinghouse that is inconsistent with the role agreed upon by the community*
*(5) Establish a standard that is globally accessible *
*(6) Avoid unfair prejudice in favor of or against any particular TM holder*
*A single standard should be applicable across all jurisdictions, to avoid confusion and to provide service to users across the globe. A process that minimizes subjective reviews by the Clearinghouse will serve this goal and will also help to minimize the costs for Clearinghouse users.”*
- Note that Pages 31-35 of the Summary of IAG Input document includes additional comments by individual IAG members that may be helpful to our Working Group’s review of this topic: https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/ about/trademark-clearinghouse/summary-iag-input-26sep12-en.pdf <https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/about/trademark-clearinghouse/summary-iag-inpu...>
*November 2013: TMCH Guidelines updated by Deloitte*
- In addition to setting out examples of acceptable evidence of use, the Guidelines state that TMCH verification of samples submitted by a TM holder is to ensure that *“the sample submitted is a sample that evidences an effort on behalf of the trademark holder to communicate to a consumer so that the consumer can distinguish the product or services of one from those of another”* (see Pages 32-33 of the TMCH Guidelines: http://www.trademark-clearinghouse.com/sites/ default/files/files/downloads/TMCH%20guidelines%20v1.2_0.pdf <http://www.trademark-clearinghouse.com/sites/default/files/files/downloads/T...>.)
- Note that if a TM agent is used to submit marks to the TMCH, the TM holder has to sign a declaration for proof of use, which provides in part that the information is *“to the best of [the TM holder’s] knowledge, complete and accurate, that the trademarks set forth in this submission are currently in use in the manner set forth in the accompanying specimen, in connection with the class of goods or services specified when this submission was made”* (see http://www.trademark- clearinghouse.com/sites/default/files/files/downloads/ Proof%20of%20use-signed%20declaration%20TM%20Agent.pdf <http://www.trademark-clearinghouse.com/sites/default/files/files/downloads/P...>).
*September 2015: Staff Paper on RPMs, reviewing data and community input to inform the GNSO Issue Report preceding this PDP *
- The paper clarifies that the “proof of use” requirement is *“intended to ensure that only holders of marks that demonstrate “use” are given the exclusionary right of Sunrise eligibility, in order to prevent abuses and provide equal treatment to all rights holders. This requirement is intended to benefit trademark holders in that it helps a trademark holder that has truly used its mark to identify and distinguish its products or services from others.”* Pages 42 and 52 of the Paper contain a brief summary of the community input relating to how this requirement has been implemented by the TMCH: http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/reviews/rpm/rpm-review- 11sep15-en.pdf.
- The full text of all public comments received on the draft version of the Staff Paper can be retrieved here: https://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-rpm-review-02feb15/ <https://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-rpm-review-02feb15/>; those comments relevant to “proof of use” were summarized on Pages 7-10 of the Staff Summary of Public Comments: https://www.icann.org/en/ system/files/files/report-comments-rpm-review-29may15-en.pdf <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/report-comments-rpm-review-29may...>.
If we may, staff would like also to take this opportunity to remind those members who have not had a chance to review the relevant historical documentation to try to do so, in particular the 2015 Staff RPM Paper linked above, as the questions and community input may be helpful in providing additional background to our Working Group’s review of each individual RPM from the 2012 New gTLD Program round.
Thanks and cheers
Mary
*From: *<gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Amr Elsadr < amr.elsadr@icann.org> *Date: *Friday, August 4, 2017 at 13:40 *To: *"gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> *Subject: *[gnso-rpm-wg] Action Items - GNSO Review of all RPMs in all gTLDs PDP WG Call - 3 August 2017
Dear Working Group Members,
Below are the action items from the WG call on 3 August 2017. The action items, notes, meeting document, recording and transcripts have been posted to the meeting’s wiki page here: https://community.icann.org/x/ vQchB[community.icann.org] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_v...>
Thanks.
Amr
*Action Items:*
1. Staff to circulate existing documentation on proof-of-use required for eligibility to participate in Sunrise Registration including documentation made available by the TMCH, in addition to comments offered by the community on the extent to which the current practice by the TMCH is, or is not consistent with the intended proof-of-use standards (presented in the staff paper reviewing the RPMs in preparation for this PDP)
2. Staff to request WG members’ feedback on the mailing list, regarding the Preamble questions about whether abuses of Sunrise registration periods have been documented by different stakeholders – WG members to submit feedback by 7 August COB
_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
With respect to the language “Should there be an assumption that those who have access to Sunrise Registrations are also able to secure a UDRP ruling in their favor - would this be the case in a scenario like .HOTEL?”. If such a requirement were to be incorporated, it would have to 1) solve (to some degree) the existing problem of Sunrise gaming, 2) not be so strict as to eliminate Sunrise registrations altogether, 3) not be utterly operational inefficient (i.e., it can’t require something like a declaratory UDRP judgment to resolve). This said, I don’t think we should take the potential UDRP requirement off the table yet, but I think we should be clear that requiring a guaranteed UDRP win in all contexts would eliminate all non-fantastical marks from the Sunrise (and even some fantastical marks that have competing trademarks in different jurisdictions). Thus, if we are certain we want arbitrary dictionary words to registerable in Sunrise, the UDRP Requirement would have to be formulated such that prevailing in UDRP would be foreseeable, even if not certain. I think the devil is in the details, and as the problem of gaming is not yet solved, we should leave this solution open for discussion—because there might be some middle ground that solves the problem of gaming without over-burdening infrastructure. 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 Mike Rodenbaugh Sent: Monday, August 7, 2017 3:22 PM To: Beckham, Brian <brian.beckham@wipo.int> Cc: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] FOR REVIEW & DISCUSSION: Draft collated proposal for Sunrise-related data collection I agree with Brian on this. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 8:47 AM, Beckham, Brian <brian.beckham@wipo.int <mailto:brian.beckham@wipo.int> > wrote: Hi Mary, all, Regarding the request for feedback on initial discussion of the Sunrise Preamble questions, I am not sure if this is what you were after, but my feedback is that the suggestion/question that there should be a presumption that a trademark owner should be required to show that it can win a UDRP to use the Sunrise process should be stricken. Not only does this idea neglect to account for trademark co-existence across classes and jurisdictions, but it fails to accommodate use of domain names corresponding to dictionary terms (i.e., Apple would not win a UDRP (or court case) if a domain name apple.whatever is used to extol the virtues of the fruit). Put another way, this would all but eliminate Sunrises. Rather, I suggest we look at efficient ways to challenge any observed abuses of the TMCH and Sunrise. Finally, the suggestion that Sunrises may not be meeting their intended purpose due to low uptake statistically-speaking (also as to documented abuses) seems to widely miss the mark. As J Scott and others pointed out on the call, the intended purpose is to provide an opportunity to get ahead of infringing registrations. Whether that opportunity is taken up by a brand owner is an altogether separate question. Best regards, Brian 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 Mary Wong Sent: Monday, August 07, 2017 5:13 PM To: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] FOR REVIEW & DISCUSSION: Draft collated proposal for Sunrise-related data collection Dear all, For the Working Group call this Wednesday, please find attached a draft proposal for a possible approach and suggested methodologies toward collecting the requested data for the Sunrise RPM. As you review the draft document in preparation for the upcoming call, please note the following: * The Working Group co-chairs have not had a chance to review the draft fully; as such, the document is a staff draft that reflects what we believe may be a practicable approach in each case (including possibly combining several suggestions). Where applicable, we have also added some comments (in the second and third columns) that include questions for either the co-chairs’ or the Working Group’s decisions. * The document includes in full all the data collection suggestions that were submitted to the Working Group. * We have begun preparing a similar collated document for Trademark Claims, and have also started looking at currently available sources (e.g. ICANN’s New gTLD Startup Page) to see what staff can begin to put together for this effort. Please also note the following outstanding action items from the past few Working Group calls: * Requested as due by today: Working Group feedback on initial discussion of the Sunrise Preamble questions (from the call last week) – transcript, recording, notes and the updated Sunrise document are available at https://community.icann.org/x/vQchB. * Feedback requested: the current set of Trademark Claims Charter questions, as refined by the Working Group – please see the document dated 20 July on this wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/c3vwAw (unless directed otherwise, staff will keep this document open for another week for comments). * Feedback requested: an updated set of Sunrise Charter questions, as refined by the Working Group and consequently updated by staff and the Sunrise Sub Team – please see the document dated 27 July on this wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/vQchB (unless directed otherwise, staff will keep this document open for another week for comments). Thanks and cheers Mary From: Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org <mailto:mary.wong@icann.org> > Date: Friday, August 4, 2017 at 16:03 To: Amr Elsadr <amr.elsadr@icann.org <mailto:amr.elsadr@icann.org> >, "gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> " <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> > Subject: FOLLOW UP on Action Items - GNSO Review of all RPMs in all gTLDs PDP WG Call - 3 August 2017 Dear all, This message follows up on the first Action Item noted by Amr (below), i.e. staff to circulate documentation on the “proof of use” requirement. We hope the following links and notes, provided in chronological order of their publication, are helpful. April 2011: Explanatory Memorandum from ICANN noting the introduction of the “proof of use” requirement in Version 6 of the Applicant Guidebook (AGB) * This clarifies that the introduction of this element was a result of Board consideration of GAC advice that all trademarks from all jurisdictions should be treated equally; see Pages 4-7 of the Memorandum: https://archive.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/trademark-protection-claims-us.... October 2011-September 2012: Discussions within the Implementation Advisory Group (IAG) * The IAG discussed methods of implementing the “proof of use” requirement, framed by the following business requirements and elements: “(1) Protect the existing legal rights of registered mark holders (2) Limit creation of new requirements affecting trademark holders (3) Ensure financial and operational feasibility (4) Avoid imposing a role for the clearinghouse that is inconsistent with the role agreed upon by the community (5) Establish a standard that is globally accessible (6) Avoid unfair prejudice in favor of or against any particular TM holder A single standard should be applicable across all jurisdictions, to avoid confusion and to provide service to users across the globe. A process that minimizes subjective reviews by the Clearinghouse will serve this goal and will also help to minimize the costs for Clearinghouse users.” * Note that Pages 31-35 of the Summary of IAG Input document includes additional comments by individual IAG members that may be helpful to our Working Group’s review of this topic: https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/about/trademark-clearinghouse/summary-iag-inpu... November 2013: TMCH Guidelines updated by Deloitte * In addition to setting out examples of acceptable evidence of use, the Guidelines state that TMCH verification of samples submitted by a TM holder is to ensure that “the sample submitted is a sample that evidences an effort on behalf of the trademark holder to communicate to a consumer so that the consumer can distinguish the product or services of one from those of another” (see Pages 32-33 of the TMCH Guidelines: http://www.trademark-clearinghouse.com/sites/default/files/files/downloads/T....) * Note that if a TM agent is used to submit marks to the TMCH, the TM holder has to sign a declaration for proof of use, which provides in part that the information is “to the best of [the TM holder’s] knowledge, complete and accurate, that the trademarks set forth in this submission are currently in use in the manner set forth in the accompanying specimen, in connection with the class of goods or services specified when this submission was made” (see http://www.trademark-clearinghouse.com/sites/default/files/files/downloads/P...). September 2015: Staff Paper on RPMs, reviewing data and community input to inform the GNSO Issue Report preceding this PDP * The paper clarifies that the “proof of use” requirement is “intended to ensure that only holders of marks that demonstrate “use” are given the exclusionary right of Sunrise eligibility, in order to prevent abuses and provide equal treatment to all rights holders. This requirement is intended to benefit trademark holders in that it helps a trademark holder that has truly used its mark to identify and distinguish its products or services from others.” Pages 42 and 52 of the Paper contain a brief summary of the community input relating to how this requirement has been implemented by the TMCH: http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/reviews/rpm/rpm-review-11sep15-en.pdf. * The full text of all public comments received on the draft version of the Staff Paper can be retrieved here: https://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-rpm-review-02feb15/; those comments relevant to “proof of use” were summarized on Pages 7-10 of the Staff Summary of Public Comments: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/report-comments-rpm-review-29may.... If we may, staff would like also to take this opportunity to remind those members who have not had a chance to review the relevant historical documentation to try to do so, in particular the 2015 Staff RPM Paper linked above, as the questions and community input may be helpful in providing additional background to our Working Group’s review of each individual RPM from the 2012 New gTLD Program round. Thanks and cheers Mary From: <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> > on behalf of Amr Elsadr <amr.elsadr@icann.org <mailto:amr.elsadr@icann.org> > Date: Friday, August 4, 2017 at 13:40 To: "gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> " <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> > Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] Action Items - GNSO Review of all RPMs in all gTLDs PDP WG Call - 3 August 2017 Dear Working Group Members, Below are the action items from the WG call on 3 August 2017. The action items, notes, meeting document, recording and transcripts have been posted to the meeting’s wiki page here: https://community.icann.org/x/vQchB[community.icann.org] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_v...> Thanks. Amr Action Items: 1. Staff to circulate existing documentation on proof-of-use required for eligibility to participate in Sunrise Registration including documentation made available by the TMCH, in addition to comments offered by the community on the extent to which the current practice by the TMCH is, or is not consistent with the intended proof-of-use standards (presented in the staff paper reviewing the RPMs in preparation for this PDP) 2. Staff to request WG members’ feedback on the mailing list, regarding the Preamble questions about whether abuses of Sunrise registration periods have been documented by different stakeholders – WG members to submit feedback by 7 August COB _______________________________________________ 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 reference to the udrp requires a subjective determination. Who will undertake this judgment and under what guidelines. I favor an abolition of the sunrise process for the following reasons: 1. There is low uptake statistically 2. There is too much room for abuse A. Domainers who obtain fake trademarks B. Trademarks of generic/descriptive terms. 3. The assumption in favor of trademark rights is illogical and contrary to the initial constraints that the process not create greater rights than exist in the offline world. 4. The notice provision has eliminated any perceived issue as to bad faith. 5. No solution exists that is not subjective in nature. Respectfully, Paul Keating Sent from my iPad
On 8 Aug 2017, at 16:28, Jonathan Frost <jonathan@get.club> wrote:
With respect to the language “Should there be an assumption that those who have access to Sunrise Registrations are also able to secure a UDRP ruling in their favor - would this be the case in a scenario like .HOTEL?”. If such a requirement were to be incorporated, it would have to 1) solve (to some degree) the existing problem of Sunrise gaming, 2) not be so strict as to eliminate Sunrise registrations altogether, 3) not be utterly operational inefficient (i.e., it can’t require something like a declaratory UDRP judgment to resolve).
This said, I don’t think we should take the potential UDRP requirement off the table yet, but I think we should be clear that requiring a guaranteed UDRP win in all contexts would eliminate all non-fantastical marks from the Sunrise (and even some fantastical marks that have competing trademarks in different jurisdictions). Thus, if we are certain we want arbitrary dictionary words to registerable in Sunrise, the UDRP Requirement would have to be formulated such that prevailing in UDRP would be foreseeable, even if not certain.
I think the devil is in the details, and as the problem of gaming is not yet solved, we should leave this solution open for discussion—because there might be some middle ground that solves the problem of gaming without over-burdening infrastructure.
Jonathan Frost General Counsel Telephone: (+1)877-707-5752 100 SE 3rd Avenue, #1310 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33394 E-Mail: jonathan@get.club Website: www.get.club
<image003.jpg>
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 and delete the original message.
From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh Sent: Monday, August 7, 2017 3:22 PM To: Beckham, Brian <brian.beckham@wipo.int> Cc: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] FOR REVIEW & DISCUSSION: Draft collated proposal for Sunrise-related data collection
I agree with Brian on this.
Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com
On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 8:47 AM, Beckham, Brian <brian.beckham@wipo.int> wrote: Hi Mary, all,
Regarding the request for feedback on initial discussion of the Sunrise Preamble questions, I am not sure if this is what you were after, but my feedback is that the suggestion/question that there should be a presumption that a trademark owner should be required to show that it can win a UDRP to use the Sunrise process should be stricken.
Not only does this idea neglect to account for trademark co-existence across classes and jurisdictions, but it fails to accommodate use of domain names corresponding to dictionary terms (i.e., Apple would not win a UDRP (or court case) if a domain name apple.whatever is used to extol the virtues of the fruit). Put another way, this would all but eliminate Sunrises.
Rather, I suggest we look at efficient ways to challenge any observed abuses of the TMCH and Sunrise.
Finally, the suggestion that Sunrises may not be meeting their intended purpose due to low uptake statistically-speaking (also as to documented abuses) seems to widely miss the mark. As J Scott and others pointed out on the call, the intended purpose is to provide an opportunity to get ahead of infringing registrations. Whether that opportunity is taken up by a brand owner is an altogether separate question.
Best regards,
Brian
From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mary Wong Sent: Monday, August 07, 2017 5:13 PM To: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] FOR REVIEW & DISCUSSION: Draft collated proposal for Sunrise-related data collection
Dear all,
For the Working Group call this Wednesday, please find attached a draft proposal for a possible approach and suggested methodologies toward collecting the requested data for the Sunrise RPM. As you review the draft document in preparation for the upcoming call, please note the following:
The Working Group co-chairs have not had a chance to review the draft fully; as such, the document is a staff draft that reflects what we believe may be a practicable approach in each case (including possibly combining several suggestions). Where applicable, we have also added some comments (in the second and third columns) that include questions for either the co-chairs’ or the Working Group’s decisions.
The document includes in full all the data collection suggestions that were submitted to the Working Group.
We have begun preparing a similar collated document for Trademark Claims, and have also started looking at currently available sources (e.g. ICANN’s New gTLD Startup Page) to see what staff can begin to put together for this effort.
Please also note the following outstanding action items from the past few Working Group calls:
Requested as due by today: Working Group feedback on initial discussion of the Sunrise Preamble questions (from the call last week) – transcript, recording, notes and the updated Sunrise document are available at https://community.icann.org/x/vQchB.
Feedback requested: the current set of Trademark Claims Charter questions, as refined by the Working Group – please see the document dated 20 July on this wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/c3vwAw (unless directed otherwise, staff will keep this document open for another week for comments).
Feedback requested: an updated set of Sunrise Charter questions, as refined by the Working Group and consequently updated by staff and the Sunrise Sub Team – please see the document dated 27 July on this wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/vQchB (unless directed otherwise, staff will keep this document open for another week for comments).
Thanks and cheers Mary
From: Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org> Date: Friday, August 4, 2017 at 16:03 To: Amr Elsadr <amr.elsadr@icann.org>, "gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: FOLLOW UP on Action Items - GNSO Review of all RPMs in all gTLDs PDP WG Call - 3 August 2017
Dear all,
This message follows up on the first Action Item noted by Amr (below), i.e. staff to circulate documentation on the “proof of use” requirement. We hope the following links and notes, provided in chronological order of their publication, are helpful.
April 2011: Explanatory Memorandum from ICANN noting the introduction of the “proof of use” requirement in Version 6 of the Applicant Guidebook (AGB) This clarifies that the introduction of this element was a result of Board consideration of GAC advice that all trademarks from all jurisdictions should be treated equally; see Pages 4-7 of the Memorandum: https://archive.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/trademark-protection-claims-us....
October 2011-September 2012: Discussions within the Implementation Advisory Group (IAG) The IAG discussed methods of implementing the “proof of use” requirement, framed by the following business requirements and elements:
“(1) Protect the existing legal rights of registered mark holders (2) Limit creation of new requirements affecting trademark holders (3) Ensure financial and operational feasibility (4) Avoid imposing a role for the clearinghouse that is inconsistent with the role agreed upon by the community (5) Establish a standard that is globally accessible (6) Avoid unfair prejudice in favor of or against any particular TM holder A single standard should be applicable across all jurisdictions, to avoid confusion and to provide service to users across the globe. A process that minimizes subjective reviews by the Clearinghouse will serve this goal and will also help to minimize the costs for Clearinghouse users.”
Note that Pages 31-35 of the Summary of IAG Input document includes additional comments by individual IAG members that may be helpful to our Working Group’s review of this topic: https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/about/trademark-clearinghouse/summary-iag-inpu...
November 2013: TMCH Guidelines updated by Deloitte In addition to setting out examples of acceptable evidence of use, the Guidelines state that TMCH verification of samples submitted by a TM holder is to ensure that “the sample submitted is a sample that evidences an effort on behalf of the trademark holder to communicate to a consumer so that the consumer can distinguish the product or services of one from those of another” (see Pages 32-33 of the TMCH Guidelines: http://www.trademark-clearinghouse.com/sites/default/files/files/downloads/T....)
Note that if a TM agent is used to submit marks to the TMCH, the TM holder has to sign a declaration for proof of use, which provides in part that the information is “to the best of [the TM holder’s] knowledge, complete and accurate, that the trademarks set forth in this submission are currently in use in the manner set forth in the accompanying specimen, in connection with the class of goods or services specified when this submission was made” (see http://www.trademark-clearinghouse.com/sites/default/files/files/downloads/P...).
September 2015: Staff Paper on RPMs, reviewing data and community input to inform the GNSO Issue Report preceding this PDP The paper clarifies that the “proof of use” requirement is “intended to ensure that only holders of marks that demonstrate “use” are given the exclusionary right of Sunrise eligibility, in order to prevent abuses and provide equal treatment to all rights holders. This requirement is intended to benefit trademark holders in that it helps a trademark holder that has truly used its mark to identify and distinguish its products or services from others.” Pages 42 and 52 of the Paper contain a brief summary of the community input relating to how this requirement has been implemented by the TMCH: http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/reviews/rpm/rpm-review-11sep15-en.pdf.
The full text of all public comments received on the draft version of the Staff Paper can be retrieved here: https://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-rpm-review-02feb15/; those comments relevant to “proof of use” were summarized on Pages 7-10 of the Staff Summary of Public Comments: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/report-comments-rpm-review-29may....
If we may, staff would like also to take this opportunity to remind those members who have not had a chance to review the relevant historical documentation to try to do so, in particular the 2015 Staff RPM Paper linked above, as the questions and community input may be helpful in providing additional background to our Working Group’s review of each individual RPM from the 2012 New gTLD Program round.
Thanks and cheers Mary
From: <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Amr Elsadr <amr.elsadr@icann.org> Date: Friday, August 4, 2017 at 13:40 To: "gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] Action Items - GNSO Review of all RPMs in all gTLDs PDP WG Call - 3 August 2017
Dear Working Group Members,
Below are the action items from the WG call on 3 August 2017. The action items, notes, meeting document, recording and transcripts have been posted to the meeting’s wiki page here: https://community.icann.org/x/vQchB[community.icann.org]
Thanks.
Amr
Action Items:
1. Staff to circulate existing documentation on proof-of-use required for eligibility to participate in Sunrise Registration including documentation made available by the TMCH, in addition to comments offered by the community on the extent to which the current practice by the TMCH is, or is not consistent with the intended proof-of-use standards (presented in the staff paper reviewing the RPMs in preparation for this PDP) 2. Staff to request WG members’ feedback on the mailing list, regarding the Preamble questions about whether abuses of Sunrise registration periods have been documented by different stakeholders – WG members to submit feedback by 7 August COB
_______________________________________________ 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 Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 11:47 AM, Beckham, Brian <brian.beckham@wipo.int> wrote:
Finally, the suggestion that Sunrises may not be meeting their intended purpose due to low uptake statistically-speaking (also as to documented abuses) seems to widely miss the mark. As J Scott and others pointed out on the call, the intended purpose is to provide an opportunity to get ahead of infringing registrations. Whether that opportunity is taken up by a brand owner is an altogether separate question.
This analysis is deeply flawed. It attempts to justify the continued existence of the sunrise by measuring "theoretical benefits", despite the low uptake rate, as opposed to "actual realized benefits" (as measured by the actual low update, data that is actually observable), when comparing against the costs of the sunrise period (to competing good faith registrants, etc.). For example, consider a public library branch that is in a large neighbourhood of 100,000 people, but is only used by 100 people per year. Using Brian's flawed analysis, the branch should be kept open, because "theoretically", 100,000 people have the opportunity to use it (even though 99,900 don't actually use it). Instead, it should be closed because only 100 people actually use it. The actual benefits (the usage by a mere 100 users) are what matter, when compared against the costs. I agree with the analysis of Paul Keating in this thread, who properly weighed the actual benefits (low), vs the costs, and came out in favour of elimination of the sunrise period. As I discussed in a previous thread on this topic, sunrise demand would shift to the landrush period when the sunrise period is eliminated. Appropriate safeguards could be instituted to reduce cybersquatting in that landrush (e.g. loser pays UDRP costs for landrush registrations, thereby raising the bar for those registrations, compared to general availability, or other mechanisms suggested). See the (long) thread in April 2017, starting with: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2017-April/001509.html and with other replies at: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2017-April/date.html#1509 ICANN's history is riddled with examples of bad policy suggestions that had theoretical benefits, and whose introduction was based on speculative demand that never was realized. It's time to assess those policies properly and honestly, and admit that they were failures. The sunrise period for new gTLDs is a prime example. By Brian's analysis, it can **never** be eliminated, even if just 1 user actually used it, because its "theoretical" benefits can **always** be said to be high. The purpose of this PDP is to do a proper and intellectually honest review, which means looking at the actual benefits. To do otherwise is to say that the outcome of this PDP is rigged and predetermined, and it doesn't matter what the actual data (as measured by actual usage), actual experience and actual statistical evidence, tells us. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
George K: Your analysis makes reference to the costs of the sunrise period to good faith registrants. What is that claimed cost. Can you quantify it. This alleged harm that you claim exists is largely speculative and a red herring when you compare it to the actual harm that befalls brand owners who have to spend a fortune to recover domain names based on their brands that have been registered by others for profit. We have gone round and round on this and what the cost to brand owners can amount to without a sunrise period. For example, one hundred sunrise period registrations in one extension can save brand owners and ultimately consumers millions of dollars of wasted dollars chasing after cybersquatters. Multiply that by at least 1000 extensions and the amount of the potential costs is staggering. So if you want to talk costs then let's focus on the financial burden at issue and how sunrise periods lower that burden. That you claim that the sunrise registrations are low in any one extension should be proof to you that bona fide brand owners are not gaming the sunrise system and are generally registering their brands in the key new gTLDs that relate to their business. There are after all over 1000 new gTLDs and presumably more on their way in the future. That means that there are well over 100,000 sunrise registrations. So you can do the math as to the costs to brand owners (costs that actually go to you and me as consumers) to go after what would likely be a bonanza to squatters who spend very little to register domain names in the firts place. Moreover, I think your analysis ignores the potential harm to consumers from not having a sunrise system. It is well documented that fraudsters and scammers register domain names based on brands for phishing purposes and for any number of other schemes to take advabtage of consumers. Without a sunrise system the potential increase in scams would be staggering if you just look at the past evidence. These are real world issues with real world costs as opposed to theoretical claims of harm you cannot quantify or prove exists In our last communications I specifically invited you to work with me and others to try and address the very limited amount of gaming by speculators that had been found . You ignored that invitation and now simply come back with the same old flawed analysis to try and gut the sunrise system altogether. I again invite you and your colleagues to work to try and find a solution to the problem of a handful of speculators gaming the sunrise system. I and likely many others support the sunrise system and see its benefits to the integrity of the domain name system. Hopefully, we can agree to work together to find a fix to the limited gaming issue as opposed to spending our time on this useless back and forth on the same issues. From: George Kirikos Sent: Wednesday, August 9, 2017 7:11 AM To: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] FOR REVIEW & DISCUSSION: Draft collated proposal for Sunrise-related data collection Hi folks, On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 11:47 AM, Beckham, Brian <brian.beckham@wipo.int> wrote:
Finally, the suggestion that Sunrises may not be meeting their intended purpose due to low uptake statistically-speaking (also as to documented abuses) seems to widely miss the mark. As J Scott and others pointed out on the call, the intended purpose is to provide an opportunity to get ahead of infringing registrations. Whether that opportunity is taken up by a brand owner is an altogether separate question.
This analysis is deeply flawed. It attempts to justify the continued existence of the sunrise by measuring "theoretical benefits", despite the low uptake rate, as opposed to "actual realized benefits" (as measured by the actual low update, data that is actually observable), when comparing against the costs of the sunrise period (to competing good faith registrants, etc.). For example, consider a public library branch that is in a large neighbourhood of 100,000 people, but is only used by 100 people per year. Using Brian's flawed analysis, the branch should be kept open, because "theoretically", 100,000 people have the opportunity to use it (even though 99,900 don't actually use it). Instead, it should be closed because only 100 people actually use it. The actual benefits (the usage by a mere 100 users) are what matter, when compared against the costs. I agree with the analysis of Paul Keating in this thread, who properly weighed the actual benefits (low), vs the costs, and came out in favour of elimination of the sunrise period. As I discussed in a previous thread on this topic, sunrise demand would shift to the landrush period when the sunrise period is eliminated. Appropriate safeguards could be instituted to reduce cybersquatting in that landrush (e.g. loser pays UDRP costs for landrush registrations, thereby raising the bar for those registrations, compared to general availability, or other mechanisms suggested). See the (long) thread in April 2017, starting with: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2017-April/001509.html and with other replies at: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2017-April/date.html#1509 ICANN's history is riddled with examples of bad policy suggestions that had theoretical benefits, and whose introduction was based on speculative demand that never was realized. It's time to assess those policies properly and honestly, and admit that they were failures. The sunrise period for new gTLDs is a prime example. By Brian's analysis, it can **never** be eliminated, even if just 1 user actually used it, because its "theoretical" benefits can **always** be said to be high. The purpose of this PDP is to do a proper and intellectually honest review, which means looking at the actual benefits. To do otherwise is to say that the outcome of this PDP is rigged and predetermined, and it doesn't matter what the actual data (as measured by actual usage), actual experience and actual statistical evidence, tells us. 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.
Georges: You ignore that I did put forth concrete proposals, namely adding burdens (like loser pays for a UDRP) in the landrush that would deter abusive registrations, which directly reduce the costs that you claim to be substantial (they're not, otherwise lawyers would be making a killing from fighting all that abuse -- clearly they're not). The benefits from those additional burdens would flow to all legitimate markholders, not just the small number of "usual suspects" who repeatedly use the sunrise periods to jump the queue. By carefully targeting the abusers (e.g. via loser pays), it targets the bad registrants without affecting the good ones.
From the Analysis Group's report, we know the top requested strings are all commonly used dictionary terms. One of the justifications for the introduction of new gTLDs was to give everyone a fair shot at a "good name". To the extent that the sunrise periods deprive everyone at that fair shot, that's a real cost (i.e. either one has to buy the domain from someone who got it in sunrise, or settle for another inferior domain). Everyone should have an equal chance at domains like "Apple.TLD", regardless of whether they're a TM holder, as long as their use is legal and non-infringing (NB: I'm a shareholder in Apple, the famous computer company, but don't believe they have a monopoly on that word). Instead, of having those terms distributed widely amongst many legitimate users, the current system deprives others of those commonly used terms.
If we eliminated the sunrise, many of those 100,000 sunrise-registered domains (over 1000 TLDs), would instead simply be registered by the same markholder in the landrush, if there was no other registrant demand for it. Of the ones where there *is* competing demand, the abusive ones can be easily handled through existing mechanisms like UDRP/URS, courts, or strengthened ones (loser pays UDRP, etc.). Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 8:02 AM, Nahitchevansky, Georges <ghn@kilpatricktownsend.com> wrote:
George K:
Your analysis makes reference to the costs of the sunrise period to good faith registrants. What is that claimed cost. Can you quantify it. This alleged harm that you claim exists is largely speculative and a red herring when you compare it to the actual harm that befalls brand owners who have to spend a fortune to recover domain names based on their brands that have been registered by others for profit. We have gone round and round on this and what the cost to brand owners can amount to without a sunrise period. For example, one hundred sunrise period registrations in one extension can save brand owners and ultimately consumers millions of dollars of wasted dollars chasing after cybersquatters. Multiply that by at least 1000 extensions and the amount of the potential costs is staggering. So if you want to talk costs then let's focus on the financial burden at issue and how sunrise periods lower that burden.
That you claim that the sunrise registrations are low in any one extension should be proof to you that bona fide brand owners are not gaming the sunrise system and are generally registering their brands in the key new gTLDs that relate to their business. There are after all over 1000 new gTLDs and presumably more on their way in the future. That means that there are well over 100,000 sunrise registrations. So you can do the math as to the costs to brand owners (costs that actually go to you and me as consumers) to go after what would likely be a bonanza to squatters who spend very little to register domain names in the firts place. Moreover, I think your analysis ignores the potential harm to consumers from not having a sunrise system. It is well documented that fraudsters and scammers register domain names based on brands for phishing purposes and for any number of other schemes to take advabtage of consumers. Without a sunrise system the potential increase in scams would be staggering if you just look at the past evidence. These are real world issues with real world costs as opposed to theoretical claims of harm you cannot quantify or prove exists
In our last communications I specifically invited you to work with me and others to try and address the very limited amount of gaming by speculators that had been found . You ignored that invitation and now simply come back with the same old flawed analysis to try and gut the sunrise system altogether. I again invite you and your colleagues to work to try and find a solution to the problem of a handful of speculators gaming the sunrise system. I and likely many others support the sunrise system and see its benefits to the integrity of the domain name system. Hopefully, we can agree to work together to find a fix to the limited gaming issue as opposed to spending our time on this useless back and forth on the same issues.
From: George Kirikos Sent: Wednesday, August 9, 2017 7:11 AM To: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] FOR REVIEW & DISCUSSION: Draft collated proposal for Sunrise-related data collection
Hi folks,
On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 11:47 AM, Beckham, Brian <brian.beckham@wipo.int> wrote:
Finally, the suggestion that Sunrises may not be meeting their intended purpose due to low uptake statistically-speaking (also as to documented abuses) seems to widely miss the mark. As J Scott and others pointed out on the call, the intended purpose is to provide an opportunity to get ahead of infringing registrations. Whether that opportunity is taken up by a brand owner is an altogether separate question.
This analysis is deeply flawed. It attempts to justify the continued existence of the sunrise by measuring "theoretical benefits", despite the low uptake rate, as opposed to "actual realized benefits" (as measured by the actual low update, data that is actually observable), when comparing against the costs of the sunrise period (to competing good faith registrants, etc.).
For example, consider a public library branch that is in a large neighbourhood of 100,000 people, but is only used by 100 people per year. Using Brian's flawed analysis, the branch should be kept open, because "theoretically", 100,000 people have the opportunity to use it (even though 99,900 don't actually use it). Instead, it should be closed because only 100 people actually use it. The actual benefits (the usage by a mere 100 users) are what matter, when compared against the costs.
I agree with the analysis of Paul Keating in this thread, who properly weighed the actual benefits (low), vs the costs, and came out in favour of elimination of the sunrise period.
As I discussed in a previous thread on this topic, sunrise demand would shift to the landrush period when the sunrise period is eliminated. Appropriate safeguards could be instituted to reduce cybersquatting in that landrush (e.g. loser pays UDRP costs for landrush registrations, thereby raising the bar for those registrations, compared to general availability, or other mechanisms suggested). See the (long) thread in April 2017, starting with:
http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2017-April/001509.html
and with other replies at:
http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2017-April/date.html#1509
ICANN's history is riddled with examples of bad policy suggestions that had theoretical benefits, and whose introduction was based on speculative demand that never was realized. It's time to assess those policies properly and honestly, and admit that they were failures. The sunrise period for new gTLDs is a prime example. By Brian's analysis, it can **never** be eliminated, even if just 1 user actually used it, because its "theoretical" benefits can **always** be said to be high.
The purpose of this PDP is to do a proper and intellectually honest review, which means looking at the actual benefits. To do otherwise is to say that the outcome of this PDP is rigged and predetermined, and it doesn't matter what the actual data (as measured by actual usage), actual experience and actual statistical evidence, tells us.
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.
George: Setting aside the larger question of whether a sunrise registration period should continue in any subsequent rounds, and speaking personally, I am wary of replacing sunrise with a landrush period that includes a requirement that a landrush registrant be required to pay the costs of any subsequent UDRP brought against a domain registered in the landrush period (and noting that you have not elaborated on whether this would simply be for administrative costs or the Complainant's attorney fees as well). The issue of "Loser pays" is a Charter question we will be addressing in Phase 2 of our work when we review the UDRP. I believe that issue should receive independent and impartial consideration, and therefore would be reluctant to see one form of loser pays adopted as a trade-off for the elimination of sunrise registrations during our Phase 1 work. Best, Philip Philip S. Corwin Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/Cell Twitter: @VLawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey ________________________________ From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> Sent: Wednesday, August 9, 2017 8:41 AM To: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] FOR REVIEW & DISCUSSION: Draft collated proposal for Sunrise-related data collection Georges: You ignore that I did put forth concrete proposals, namely adding burdens (like loser pays for a UDRP) in the landrush that would deter abusive registrations, which directly reduce the costs that you claim to be substantial (they're not, otherwise lawyers would be making a killing from fighting all that abuse -- clearly they're not). The benefits from those additional burdens would flow to all legitimate markholders, not just the small number of "usual suspects" who repeatedly use the sunrise periods to jump the queue. By carefully targeting the abusers (e.g. via loser pays), it targets the bad registrants without affecting the good ones.
From the Analysis Group's report, we know the top requested strings are all commonly used dictionary terms. One of the justifications for the introduction of new gTLDs was to give everyone a fair shot at a "good name". To the extent that the sunrise periods deprive everyone at that fair shot, that's a real cost (i.e. either one has to buy the domain from someone who got it in sunrise, or settle for another inferior domain). Everyone should have an equal chance at domains like "Apple.TLD", regardless of whether they're a TM holder, as long as their use is legal and non-infringing (NB: I'm a shareholder in Apple, the famous computer company, but don't believe they have a monopoly on that word). Instead, of having those terms distributed widely amongst many legitimate users, the current system deprives others of those commonly used terms.
If we eliminated the sunrise, many of those 100,000 sunrise-registered domains (over 1000 TLDs), would instead simply be registered by the same markholder in the landrush, if there was no other registrant demand for it. Of the ones where there *is* competing demand, the abusive ones can be easily handled through existing mechanisms like UDRP/URS, courts, or strengthened ones (loser pays UDRP, etc.). Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ Leap of Faith Financial Services Inc.<http://www.leap.com/> www.leap.com Leap of Faith Financial Services Inc. is a privately held company based in Toronto, Canada. On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 8:02 AM, Nahitchevansky, Georges <ghn@kilpatricktownsend.com> wrote:
George K:
Your analysis makes reference to the costs of the sunrise period to good faith registrants. What is that claimed cost. Can you quantify it. This alleged harm that you claim exists is largely speculative and a red herring when you compare it to the actual harm that befalls brand owners who have to spend a fortune to recover domain names based on their brands that have been registered by others for profit. We have gone round and round on this and what the cost to brand owners can amount to without a sunrise period. For example, one hundred sunrise period registrations in one extension can save brand owners and ultimately consumers millions of dollars of wasted dollars chasing after cybersquatters. Multiply that by at least 1000 extensions and the amount of the potential costs is staggering. So if you want to talk costs then let's focus on the financial burden at issue and how sunrise periods lower that burden.
That you claim that the sunrise registrations are low in any one extension should be proof to you that bona fide brand owners are not gaming the sunrise system and are generally registering their brands in the key new gTLDs that relate to their business. There are after all over 1000 new gTLDs and presumably more on their way in the future. That means that there are well over 100,000 sunrise registrations. So you can do the math as to the costs to brand owners (costs that actually go to you and me as consumers) to go after what would likely be a bonanza to squatters who spend very little to register domain names in the firts place. Moreover, I think your analysis ignores the potential harm to consumers from not having a sunrise system. It is well documented that fraudsters and scammers register domain names based on brands for phishing purposes and for any number of other schemes to take advabtage of consumers. Without a sunrise system the potential increase in scams would be staggering if you just look at the past evidence. These are real world issues with real world costs as opposed to theoretical claims of harm you cannot quantify or prove exists
In our last communications I specifically invited you to work with me and others to try and address the very limited amount of gaming by speculators that had been found . You ignored that invitation and now simply come back with the same old flawed analysis to try and gut the sunrise system altogether. I again invite you and your colleagues to work to try and find a solution to the problem of a handful of speculators gaming the sunrise system. I and likely many others support the sunrise system and see its benefits to the integrity of the domain name system. Hopefully, we can agree to work together to find a fix to the limited gaming issue as opposed to spending our time on this useless back and forth on the same issues.
From: George Kirikos Sent: Wednesday, August 9, 2017 7:11 AM To: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] FOR REVIEW & DISCUSSION: Draft collated proposal for Sunrise-related data collection
Hi folks,
On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 11:47 AM, Beckham, Brian <brian.beckham@wipo.int> wrote:
Finally, the suggestion that Sunrises may not be meeting their intended purpose due to low uptake statistically-speaking (also as to documented abuses) seems to widely miss the mark. As J Scott and others pointed out on the call, the intended purpose is to provide an opportunity to get ahead of infringing registrations. Whether that opportunity is taken up by a brand owner is an altogether separate question.
This analysis is deeply flawed. It attempts to justify the continued existence of the sunrise by measuring "theoretical benefits", despite the low uptake rate, as opposed to "actual realized benefits" (as measured by the actual low update, data that is actually observable), when comparing against the costs of the sunrise period (to competing good faith registrants, etc.).
For example, consider a public library branch that is in a large neighbourhood of 100,000 people, but is only used by 100 people per year. Using Brian's flawed analysis, the branch should be kept open, because "theoretically", 100,000 people have the opportunity to use it (even though 99,900 don't actually use it). Instead, it should be closed because only 100 people actually use it. The actual benefits (the usage by a mere 100 users) are what matter, when compared against the costs.
I agree with the analysis of Paul Keating in this thread, who properly weighed the actual benefits (low), vs the costs, and came out in favour of elimination of the sunrise period.
As I discussed in a previous thread on this topic, sunrise demand would shift to the landrush period when the sunrise period is eliminated. Appropriate safeguards could be instituted to reduce cybersquatting in that landrush (e.g. loser pays UDRP costs for landrush registrations, thereby raising the bar for those registrations, compared to general availability, or other mechanisms suggested). See the (long) thread in April 2017, starting with:
http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2017-April/001509.html
and with other replies at:
http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2017-April/date.html#1509
ICANN's history is riddled with examples of bad policy suggestions that had theoretical benefits, and whose introduction was based on speculative demand that never was realized. It's time to assess those policies properly and honestly, and admit that they were failures. The sunrise period for new gTLDs is a prime example. By Brian's analysis, it can **never** be eliminated, even if just 1 user actually used it, because its "theoretical" benefits can **always** be said to be high.
The purpose of this PDP is to do a proper and intellectually honest review, which means looking at the actual benefits. To do otherwise is to say that the outcome of this PDP is rigged and predetermined, and it doesn't matter what the actual data (as measured by actual usage), actual experience and actual statistical evidence, tells us.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ Leap of Faith Financial Services Inc.<http://www.leap.com/> www.leap.com Leap of Faith Financial Services Inc. is a privately held company based in Toronto, Canada.
_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg gnso-rpm-wg -- Public Working Group mailing list for the ...<https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg> mm.icann.org Public Working Group mailing list for the GNSO RMP Review WG To see the collection of prior postings to the list, visit the gnso-rpm-wg Archives.
________________________________
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 gnso-rpm-wg -- Public Working Group mailing list for the ...<https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg> mm.icann.org Public Working Group mailing list for the GNSO RMP Review WG To see the collection of prior postings to the list, visit the gnso-rpm-wg Archives.
George The reason I did not focus on the loser pay suggestion is that I disagree with the premise that legitimate registrants are being hurt. Your Apple example, does not take into account legitimate sunrise situations where the registration would correlate to a bona fide business interest, product, service etc.. Removing sunrise registrations in favor of a landrush period and a loser pay scheme is unworkable and burdensome for a number of reasons. First, if the name has been taken, months can pass before the name is recovered. Thus the risk of malicious use of a domain name for some period of time exists (something we know happens fairly frequently). Second, your loser pays scheme is not workable. Does it include attorneys fees and time spent investigating a matter when the registrant hides, when steps are taken to delay a transfer of a domain name, possible bogus appeals, sham legitimate interest claims etc. Third, how do you collect. Do you force registrants to post bonds when they register domain names. And how much of a bond and in what form so as to avoid collection issue. The reality is that these matters can cost a bunch of money. There are a number of other points to be made in this regard, but I agree with Phil that this is not the time and place to push on this. The sunrise is a sensible and reasonable way to balance interests and provide protection to brand owners, maintain the integrity of the system, and prevent harm to consumers. The harm you claim exists to other legitimate registrants is really not there or in evidence. So again, I think we need to focus on tweeking the sunrise RPM to address the limited gaming by speculators and not trying to come up with burdensome and unworkable structures to replace the sunrise RPM. Original Message From: George Kirikos Sent: Wednesday, August 9, 2017 8:42 AM To: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] FOR REVIEW & DISCUSSION: Draft collated proposal for Sunrise-related data collection Georges: You ignore that I did put forth concrete proposals, namely adding burdens (like loser pays for a UDRP) in the landrush that would deter abusive registrations, which directly reduce the costs that you claim to be substantial (they're not, otherwise lawyers would be making a killing from fighting all that abuse -- clearly they're not). The benefits from those additional burdens would flow to all legitimate markholders, not just the small number of "usual suspects" who repeatedly use the sunrise periods to jump the queue. By carefully targeting the abusers (e.g. via loser pays), it targets the bad registrants without affecting the good ones.
From the Analysis Group's report, we know the top requested strings are all commonly used dictionary terms. One of the justifications for the introduction of new gTLDs was to give everyone a fair shot at a "good name". To the extent that the sunrise periods deprive everyone at that fair shot, that's a real cost (i.e. either one has to buy the domain from someone who got it in sunrise, or settle for another inferior domain). Everyone should have an equal chance at domains like "Apple.TLD", regardless of whether they're a TM holder, as long as their use is legal and non-infringing (NB: I'm a shareholder in Apple, the famous computer company, but don't believe they have a monopoly on that word). Instead, of having those terms distributed widely amongst many legitimate users, the current system deprives others of those commonly used terms.
If we eliminated the sunrise, many of those 100,000 sunrise-registered domains (over 1000 TLDs), would instead simply be registered by the same markholder in the landrush, if there was no other registrant demand for it. Of the ones where there *is* competing demand, the abusive ones can be easily handled through existing mechanisms like UDRP/URS, courts, or strengthened ones (loser pays UDRP, etc.). Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 8:02 AM, Nahitchevansky, Georges <ghn@kilpatricktownsend.com> wrote:
George K:
Your analysis makes reference to the costs of the sunrise period to good faith registrants. What is that claimed cost. Can you quantify it. This alleged harm that you claim exists is largely speculative and a red herring when you compare it to the actual harm that befalls brand owners who have to spend a fortune to recover domain names based on their brands that have been registered by others for profit. We have gone round and round on this and what the cost to brand owners can amount to without a sunrise period. For example, one hundred sunrise period registrations in one extension can save brand owners and ultimately consumers millions of dollars of wasted dollars chasing after cybersquatters. Multiply that by at least 1000 extensions and the amount of the potential costs is staggering. So if you want to talk costs then let's focus on the financial burden at issue and how sunrise periods lower that burden.
That you claim that the sunrise registrations are low in any one extension should be proof to you that bona fide brand owners are not gaming the sunrise system and are generally registering their brands in the key new gTLDs that relate to their business. There are after all over 1000 new gTLDs and presumably more on their way in the future. That means that there are well over 100,000 sunrise registrations. So you can do the math as to the costs to brand owners (costs that actually go to you and me as consumers) to go after what would likely be a bonanza to squatters who spend very little to register domain names in the firts place. Moreover, I think your analysis ignores the potential harm to consumers from not having a sunrise system. It is well documented that fraudsters and scammers register domain names based on brands for phishing purposes and for any number of other schemes to take advabtage of consumers. Without a sunrise system the potential increase in scams would be staggering if you just look at the past evidence. These are real world issues with real world costs as opposed to theoretical claims of harm you cannot quantify or prove exists
In our last communications I specifically invited you to work with me and others to try and address the very limited amount of gaming by speculators that had been found . You ignored that invitation and now simply come back with the same old flawed analysis to try and gut the sunrise system altogether. I again invite you and your colleagues to work to try and find a solution to the problem of a handful of speculators gaming the sunrise system. I and likely many others support the sunrise system and see its benefits to the integrity of the domain name system. Hopefully, we can agree to work together to find a fix to the limited gaming issue as opposed to spending our time on this useless back and forth on the same issues.
From: George Kirikos Sent: Wednesday, August 9, 2017 7:11 AM To: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] FOR REVIEW & DISCUSSION: Draft collated proposal for Sunrise-related data collection
Hi folks,
On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 11:47 AM, Beckham, Brian <brian.beckham@wipo.int> wrote:
Finally, the suggestion that Sunrises may not be meeting their intended purpose due to low uptake statistically-speaking (also as to documented abuses) seems to widely miss the mark. As J Scott and others pointed out on the call, the intended purpose is to provide an opportunity to get ahead of infringing registrations. Whether that opportunity is taken up by a brand owner is an altogether separate question.
This analysis is deeply flawed. It attempts to justify the continued existence of the sunrise by measuring "theoretical benefits", despite the low uptake rate, as opposed to "actual realized benefits" (as measured by the actual low update, data that is actually observable), when comparing against the costs of the sunrise period (to competing good faith registrants, etc.).
For example, consider a public library branch that is in a large neighbourhood of 100,000 people, but is only used by 100 people per year. Using Brian's flawed analysis, the branch should be kept open, because "theoretically", 100,000 people have the opportunity to use it (even though 99,900 don't actually use it). Instead, it should be closed because only 100 people actually use it. The actual benefits (the usage by a mere 100 users) are what matter, when compared against the costs.
I agree with the analysis of Paul Keating in this thread, who properly weighed the actual benefits (low), vs the costs, and came out in favour of elimination of the sunrise period.
As I discussed in a previous thread on this topic, sunrise demand would shift to the landrush period when the sunrise period is eliminated. Appropriate safeguards could be instituted to reduce cybersquatting in that landrush (e.g. loser pays UDRP costs for landrush registrations, thereby raising the bar for those registrations, compared to general availability, or other mechanisms suggested). See the (long) thread in April 2017, starting with:
http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2017-April/001509.html
and with other replies at:
http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2017-April/date.html#1509
ICANN's history is riddled with examples of bad policy suggestions that had theoretical benefits, and whose introduction was based on speculative demand that never was realized. It's time to assess those policies properly and honestly, and admit that they were failures. The sunrise period for new gTLDs is a prime example. By Brian's analysis, it can **never** be eliminated, even if just 1 user actually used it, because its "theoretical" benefits can **always** be said to be high.
The purpose of this PDP is to do a proper and intellectually honest review, which means looking at the actual benefits. To do otherwise is to say that the outcome of this PDP is rigged and predetermined, and it doesn't matter what the actual data (as measured by actual usage), actual experience and actual statistical evidence, tells us.
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
+1 Georges. Best regards, Scott Scott R. Austin | Board Certified Intellectual Property Attorney | VLP Law Group LLP 101 NE Third Avenue, Suite 1500, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: (954) 204-3744 | Fax: (954) 320-0233 | SAustin@VLPLawGroup.com -----Original Message----- From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Nahitchevansky, Georges Sent: Wednesday, August 9, 2017 10:23 AM To: George Kirikos <icann@leap.com>; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] FOR REVIEW & DISCUSSION: Draft collated proposal for Sunrise-related data collection George The reason I did not focus on the loser pay suggestion is that I disagree with the premise that legitimate registrants are being hurt. Your Apple example, does not take into account legitimate sunrise situations where the registration would correlate to a bona fide business interest, product, service etc.. Removing sunrise registrations in favor of a landrush period and a loser pay scheme is unworkable and burdensome for a number of reasons. First, if the name has been taken, months can pass before the name is recovered. Thus the risk of malicious use of a domain name for some period of time exists (something we know happens fairly frequently). Second, your loser pays scheme is not workable. Does it include attorneys fees and time spent investigating a matter when the registrant hides, when steps are taken to delay a transfer of a domain name, possible bogus appeals, sham legitimate interest claims etc. Third, how do you collect. Do you force registrants to post bonds when they register domain names. And how much of a bond and in what form so as to avoid collection issue. The reality is that these matters can cost a bunch of money. There are a number of other points to be made in this regard, but I agree with Phil that this is not the time and place to push on this. The sunrise is a sensible and reasonable way to balance interests and provide protection to brand owners, maintain the integrity of the system, and prevent harm to consumers. The harm you claim exists to other legitimate registrants is really not there or in evidence. So again, I think we need to focus on tweeking the sunrise RPM to address the limited gaming by speculators and not trying to come up with burdensome and unworkable structures to replace the sunrise RPM. Original Message From: George Kirikos Sent: Wednesday, August 9, 2017 8:42 AM To: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] FOR REVIEW & DISCUSSION: Draft collated proposal for Sunrise-related data collection Georges: You ignore that I did put forth concrete proposals, namely adding burdens (like loser pays for a UDRP) in the landrush that would deter abusive registrations, which directly reduce the costs that you claim to be substantial (they're not, otherwise lawyers would be making a killing from fighting all that abuse -- clearly they're not). The benefits from those additional burdens would flow to all legitimate markholders, not just the small number of "usual suspects" who repeatedly use the sunrise periods to jump the queue. By carefully targeting the abusers (e.g. via loser pays), it targets the bad registrants without affecting the good ones.
From the Analysis Group's report, we know the top requested strings are all commonly used dictionary terms. One of the justifications for the introduction of new gTLDs was to give everyone a fair shot at a "good name". To the extent that the sunrise periods deprive everyone at that fair shot, that's a real cost (i.e. either one has to buy the domain from someone who got it in sunrise, or settle for another inferior domain). Everyone should have an equal chance at domains like "Apple.TLD", regardless of whether they're a TM holder, as long as their use is legal and non-infringing (NB: I'm a shareholder in Apple, the famous computer company, but don't believe they have a monopoly on that word). Instead, of having those terms distributed widely amongst many legitimate users, the current system deprives others of those commonly used terms.
If we eliminated the sunrise, many of those 100,000 sunrise-registered domains (over 1000 TLDs), would instead simply be registered by the same markholder in the landrush, if there was no other registrant demand for it. Of the ones where there *is* competing demand, the abusive ones can be easily handled through existing mechanisms like UDRP/URS, courts, or strengthened ones (loser pays UDRP, etc.). Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http://www.leap.com/&c=E,1,ar5mgyDEUVI... On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 8:02 AM, Nahitchevansky, Georges <ghn@kilpatricktownsend.com> wrote:
George K:
Your analysis makes reference to the costs of the sunrise period to good faith registrants. What is that claimed cost. Can you quantify it. This alleged harm that you claim exists is largely speculative and a red herring when you compare it to the actual harm that befalls brand owners who have to spend a fortune to recover domain names based on their brands that have been registered by others for profit. We have gone round and round on this and what the cost to brand owners can amount to without a sunrise period. For example, one hundred sunrise period registrations in one extension can save brand owners and ultimately consumers millions of dollars of wasted dollars chasing after cybersquatters. Multiply that by at least 1000 extensions and the amount of the potential costs is staggering. So if you want to talk costs then let's focus on the financial burden at issue and how sunrise periods lower that burden.
That you claim that the sunrise registrations are low in any one extension should be proof to you that bona fide brand owners are not gaming the sunrise system and are generally registering their brands in the key new gTLDs that relate to their business. There are after all over 1000 new gTLDs and presumably more on their way in the future. That means that there are well over 100,000 sunrise registrations. So you can do the math as to the costs to brand owners (costs that actually go to you and me as consumers) to go after what would likely be a bonanza to squatters who spend very little to register domain names in the firts place. Moreover, I think your analysis ignores the potential harm to consumers from not having a sunrise system. It is well documented that fraudsters and scammers register domain names based on brands for phishing purposes and for any number of other schemes to take advabtage of consumers. Without a sunrise system the potential increase in scams would be staggering if you just look at the past evidence. These are real world issues with real world costs as opposed to theoretical claims of harm you cannot quantify or prove exists
In our last communications I specifically invited you to work with me and others to try and address the very limited amount of gaming by speculators that had been found . You ignored that invitation and now simply come back with the same old flawed analysis to try and gut the sunrise system altogether. I again invite you and your colleagues to work to try and find a solution to the problem of a handful of speculators gaming the sunrise system. I and likely many others support the sunrise system and see its benefits to the integrity of the domain name system. Hopefully, we can agree to work together to find a fix to the limited gaming issue as opposed to spending our time on this useless back and forth on the same issues.
From: George Kirikos Sent: Wednesday, August 9, 2017 7:11 AM To: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] FOR REVIEW & DISCUSSION: Draft collated proposal for Sunrise-related data collection
Hi folks,
On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 11:47 AM, Beckham, Brian <brian.beckham@wipo.int> wrote:
Finally, the suggestion that Sunrises may not be meeting their intended purpose due to low uptake statistically-speaking (also as to documented abuses) seems to widely miss the mark. As J Scott and others pointed out on the call, the intended purpose is to provide an opportunity to get ahead of infringing registrations. Whether that opportunity is taken up by a brand owner is an altogether separate question.
This analysis is deeply flawed. It attempts to justify the continued existence of the sunrise by measuring "theoretical benefits", despite the low uptake rate, as opposed to "actual realized benefits" (as measured by the actual low update, data that is actually observable), when comparing against the costs of the sunrise period (to competing good faith registrants, etc.).
For example, consider a public library branch that is in a large neighbourhood of 100,000 people, but is only used by 100 people per year. Using Brian's flawed analysis, the branch should be kept open, because "theoretically", 100,000 people have the opportunity to use it (even though 99,900 don't actually use it). Instead, it should be closed because only 100 people actually use it. The actual benefits (the usage by a mere 100 users) are what matter, when compared against the costs.
I agree with the analysis of Paul Keating in this thread, who properly weighed the actual benefits (low), vs the costs, and came out in favour of elimination of the sunrise period.
As I discussed in a previous thread on this topic, sunrise demand would shift to the landrush period when the sunrise period is eliminated. Appropriate safeguards could be instituted to reduce cybersquatting in that landrush (e.g. loser pays UDRP costs for landrush registrations, thereby raising the bar for those registrations, compared to general availability, or other mechanisms suggested). See the (long) thread in April 2017, starting with:
http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2017-April/001509.html
and with other replies at:
http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2017-April/date.html#1509
ICANN's history is riddled with examples of bad policy suggestions that had theoretical benefits, and whose introduction was based on speculative demand that never was realized. It's time to assess those policies properly and honestly, and admit that they were failures. The sunrise period for new gTLDs is a prime example. By Brian's analysis, it can **never** be eliminated, even if just 1 user actually used it, because its "theoretical" benefits can **always** be said to be high.
The purpose of this PDP is to do a proper and intellectually honest review, which means looking at the actual benefits. To do otherwise is to say that the outcome of this PDP is rigged and predetermined, and it doesn't matter what the actual data (as measured by actual usage), actual experience and actual statistical evidence, tells us.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http://www.leap.com/&c=E,1,Li_us wBLmJL2Erq6BG-qajbTN_S2fyLVPuNQ3aKllyaNcW4Ck2ATZ9De39tlHHlfQmnnIW-TEHb xv0Z60RWwQ8pOUAOAuFKWkLFf0SGXbr5xlg,,&typo=1 _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg This message contains information which may be confidential and legally privileged. Unless you are the addressee, you may not use, copy or disclose to anyone this message or any information contained in the message. If you have received this message in error, please send me an email and delete this message. Any tax advice provided by VLP is for your use only and cannot be used to avoid tax penalties or for promotional or marketing purposes.
George, in terms of your UDRP loser pays concept, do you have any thoughts on how to go about implementing this? Would e.g. registrars or registries take a (credit card) bond? As you can imagine, brand owners would likely support this, but have long raised implementation and enforcement concerns. Brian On 9 August 2017 at 05:42:49 GMT-7, George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote: Georges: You ignore that I did put forth concrete proposals, namely adding burdens (like loser pays for a UDRP) in the landrush that would deter abusive registrations, which directly reduce the costs that you claim to be substantial (they're not, otherwise lawyers would be making a killing from fighting all that abuse -- clearly they're not). The benefits from those additional burdens would flow to all legitimate markholders, not just the small number of "usual suspects" who repeatedly use the sunrise periods to jump the queue. By carefully targeting the abusers (e.g. via loser pays), it targets the bad registrants without affecting the good ones.
From the Analysis Group's report, we know the top requested strings are all commonly used dictionary terms. One of the justifications for the introduction of new gTLDs was to give everyone a fair shot at a "good name". To the extent that the sunrise periods deprive everyone at that fair shot, that's a real cost (i.e. either one has to buy the domain from someone who got it in sunrise, or settle for another inferior domain). Everyone should have an equal chance at domains like "Apple.TLD", regardless of whether they're a TM holder, as long as their use is legal and non-infringing (NB: I'm a shareholder in Apple, the famous computer company, but don't believe they have a monopoly on that word). Instead, of having those terms distributed widely amongst many legitimate users, the current system deprives others of those commonly used terms.
If we eliminated the sunrise, many of those 100,000 sunrise-registered domains (over 1000 TLDs), would instead simply be registered by the same markholder in the landrush, if there was no other registrant demand for it. Of the ones where there *is* competing demand, the abusive ones can be easily handled through existing mechanisms like UDRP/URS, courts, or strengthened ones (loser pays UDRP, etc.). Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 8:02 AM, Nahitchevansky, Georges <ghn@kilpatricktownsend.com> wrote:
George K:
Your analysis makes reference to the costs of the sunrise period to good faith registrants. What is that claimed cost. Can you quantify it. This alleged harm that you claim exists is largely speculative and a red herring when you compare it to the actual harm that befalls brand owners who have to spend a fortune to recover domain names based on their brands that have been registered by others for profit. We have gone round and round on this and what the cost to brand owners can amount to without a sunrise period. For example, one hundred sunrise period registrations in one extension can save brand owners and ultimately consumers millions of dollars of wasted dollars chasing after cybersquatters. Multiply that by at least 1000 extensions and the amount of the potential costs is staggering. So if you want to talk costs then let's focus on the financial burden at issue and how sunrise periods lower that burden.
That you claim that the sunrise registrations are low in any one extension should be proof to you that bona fide brand owners are not gaming the sunrise system and are generally registering their brands in the key new gTLDs that relate to their business. There are after all over 1000 new gTLDs and presumably more on their way in the future. That means that there are well over 100,000 sunrise registrations. So you can do the math as to the costs to brand owners (costs that actually go to you and me as consumers) to go after what would likely be a bonanza to squatters who spend very little to register domain names in the firts place. Moreover, I think your analysis ignores the potential harm to consumers from not having a sunrise system. It is well documented that fraudsters and scammers register domain names based on brands for phishing purposes and for any number of other schemes to take advabtage of consumers. Without a sunrise system the potential increase in scams would be staggering if you just look at the past evidence. These are real world issues with real world costs as opposed to theoretical claims of harm you cannot quantify or prove exists
In our last communications I specifically invited you to work with me and others to try and address the very limited amount of gaming by speculators that had been found . You ignored that invitation and now simply come back with the same old flawed analysis to try and gut the sunrise system altogether. I again invite you and your colleagues to work to try and find a solution to the problem of a handful of speculators gaming the sunrise system. I and likely many others support the sunrise system and see its benefits to the integrity of the domain name system. Hopefully, we can agree to work together to find a fix to the limited gaming issue as opposed to spending our time on this useless back and forth on the same issues.
From: George Kirikos Sent: Wednesday, August 9, 2017 7:11 AM To: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] FOR REVIEW & DISCUSSION: Draft collated proposal for Sunrise-related data collection
Hi folks,
On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 11:47 AM, Beckham, Brian <brian.beckham@wipo.int> wrote:
Finally, the suggestion that Sunrises may not be meeting their intended purpose due to low uptake statistically-speaking (also as to documented abuses) seems to widely miss the mark. As J Scott and others pointed out on the call, the intended purpose is to provide an opportunity to get ahead of infringing registrations. Whether that opportunity is taken up by a brand owner is an altogether separate question.
This analysis is deeply flawed. It attempts to justify the continued existence of the sunrise by measuring "theoretical benefits", despite the low uptake rate, as opposed to "actual realized benefits" (as measured by the actual low update, data that is actually observable), when comparing against the costs of the sunrise period (to competing good faith registrants, etc.).
For example, consider a public library branch that is in a large neighbourhood of 100,000 people, but is only used by 100 people per year. Using Brian's flawed analysis, the branch should be kept open, because "theoretically", 100,000 people have the opportunity to use it (even though 99,900 don't actually use it). Instead, it should be closed because only 100 people actually use it. The actual benefits (the usage by a mere 100 users) are what matter, when compared against the costs.
I agree with the analysis of Paul Keating in this thread, who properly weighed the actual benefits (low), vs the costs, and came out in favour of elimination of the sunrise period.
As I discussed in a previous thread on this topic, sunrise demand would shift to the landrush period when the sunrise period is eliminated. Appropriate safeguards could be instituted to reduce cybersquatting in that landrush (e.g. loser pays UDRP costs for landrush registrations, thereby raising the bar for those registrations, compared to general availability, or other mechanisms suggested). See the (long) thread in April 2017, starting with:
http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2017-April/001509.html
and with other replies at:
http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2017-April/date.html#1509
ICANN's history is riddled with examples of bad policy suggestions that had theoretical benefits, and whose introduction was based on speculative demand that never was realized. It's time to assess those policies properly and honestly, and admit that they were failures. The sunrise period for new gTLDs is a prime example. By Brian's analysis, it can **never** be eliminated, even if just 1 user actually used it, because its "theoretical" benefits can **always** be said to be high.
The purpose of this PDP is to do a proper and intellectually honest review, which means looking at the actual benefits. To do otherwise is to say that the outcome of this PDP is rigged and predetermined, and it doesn't matter what the actual data (as measured by actual usage), actual experience and actual statistical evidence, tells us.
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
Hi Brian, On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 5:44 PM, Beckham, Brian <brian.beckham@wipo.int> wrote:
George, in terms of your UDRP loser pays concept, do you have any thoughts on how to go about implementing this? Would e.g. registrars or registries take a (credit card) bond? As you can imagine, brand owners would likely support this, but have long raised implementation and enforcement concerns.
This would apply just to the landrush registrations, i.e. raising the bar for those registrants utilizing the procedure, helping to crowd out cybersquatters from going after the usual "130 sunrise" registrations. There'd be several ways make an efficient implementation, but the simplest might be: 1. impose the costs directly on the registrar, and leave it up to the registrar to perform due diligence on their registrants utilizing the landrush (e.g. getting indemnified for the risk, etc.). A registrar like Markmonitor or CSC whose famous customers want to register Apple.TLD or Google.TLD would face minimal risk. A more dodgy registrar whose non-famous customer wants to register Exxon.TLD or Verizon.TLD would face more risk, and would either deny the registrant completely, or have them put up more capital, pay more for insurance, etc. (or put their other domain names at risk). It would require registrars using the landrush to have appropriate levels of insurance. ICANN appears to have eliminated the insurance requirements a couple of years ago: https://www.icann.org/news/blog/icann-waives-registrar-insurance-requirement... but that could be undone, for this mechanism. Alternatively, 2. direct development of a 3rd party guarantor/insurance/bonding (not necessarily the registrar, but some other entity that would be accountable and have appropriate financial backing (e.g. probably a few services would spring up to assess the risk, and could be distributed via registrars). For efficiency, I'd tweak the UDRP slightly, to help ensure collection (getting the money up front) and efficiency for both sides (for both #1 and #2 above), namely: Step A: Have TM owner file a very brief "notice of dispute" (i.e. minimal legal costs to prepare, putting up their loser pay costs (as a deposit) up front. In essence, it would be kind of like a C&D with some "oomph" behind it, since it's backed by money saying "we will file a dispute, and we're showing how serious we are as we already deposited money if we lose!". Step B: The relevant guarantor (depending on #1 or #2 above) or the registrant themselves has N days (e.g. N = 20, N = 30) to put up the same amount, should they wish to defend the UDRP. Step C: If the money is not put up, the domain automatically is awarded to the UDRP complainant (i.e. no panel fees, no decision). A "no contest", "no mas" kind of outcome (for the boxing fans!). Step D: If the money is put up, UDRP complainant has M days (M = 20, or 30, or whatever) to submit the complaint to the relevant provider. UDRP respondent has similar time limits for a response. It goes to a decision. Loser loses the money they put up in A or B above. Of course, cases could go to court at any time, before, during, or after the domain dispute, with a similar loser pays provision. Cybersquatters would hate this system. Legitimate registrants would face little risk (and that "risk" is taken on knowingly, the price of using the landrush). Bona fide TM holders too should like it -- most TM holders *hate* having to pay defensive registration fees, for domains they don't want to use. If the domain name ends up with a legitimate registrant who isn't cybersquatting, that's a win-win for the TM holder who doesn't have to register that domain in their own name. "Sunrise gamers" would also hate it (since they'd now have competition in landrush from legitimate registrants, as per one of my emails earlier today). To give a concrete example, there's a company called "Apple Auto Glass" here in Canada: http://www.appleautoglass.com Suppose they wanted to register Apple.glass (although, that's currently reserved for some reason), and "win" it in a landrush auction against the famous computer company. Apple the computer company should be delighted, as that's one less domain name they have to pay for that they'll never use. And Apple the computer company would not likely file a domain name dispute. Apple Auto Glass would face limited exposure/risk, in the eyes of their registrar or guarantor, etc. for any future UDRP costs, either. If instead a cybersquatter got it, the loser pays system would (1) help the famous Apple computer company reduce costs of curative actions, and (2) punish more directly the cybersquatter, beyond what's available now. A cybersquatter who is punished enough goes out of business (e.g. iREIT). Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
Oops, I kind of skipped a step there --- with the "tweaked" UDRP I suggested, one wouldn't necessarily have to have the same level of guarantee, given the default scenario (where the domain transfers if the money isn't put up by the registrant). However, I still think there should be *some* monetary damages (e.g. a few hundred bucks) even in that default scenario, to cover the "C&D" aspect of the "notice of dispute"). Those would be lower than the damages/costs in a full-blown contested UDRP. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 6:41 PM, George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote:
Hi Brian,
On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 5:44 PM, Beckham, Brian <brian.beckham@wipo.int> wrote:
George, in terms of your UDRP loser pays concept, do you have any thoughts on how to go about implementing this? Would e.g. registrars or registries take a (credit card) bond? As you can imagine, brand owners would likely support this, but have long raised implementation and enforcement concerns.
This would apply just to the landrush registrations, i.e. raising the bar for those registrants utilizing the procedure, helping to crowd out cybersquatters from going after the usual "130 sunrise" registrations. There'd be several ways make an efficient implementation, but the simplest might be:
1. impose the costs directly on the registrar, and leave it up to the registrar to perform due diligence on their registrants utilizing the landrush (e.g. getting indemnified for the risk, etc.). A registrar like Markmonitor or CSC whose famous customers want to register Apple.TLD or Google.TLD would face minimal risk. A more dodgy registrar whose non-famous customer wants to register Exxon.TLD or Verizon.TLD would face more risk, and would either deny the registrant completely, or have them put up more capital, pay more for insurance, etc. (or put their other domain names at risk). It would require registrars using the landrush to have appropriate levels of insurance. ICANN appears to have eliminated the insurance requirements a couple of years ago:
https://www.icann.org/news/blog/icann-waives-registrar-insurance-requirement...
but that could be undone, for this mechanism.
Alternatively,
2. direct development of a 3rd party guarantor/insurance/bonding (not necessarily the registrar, but some other entity that would be accountable and have appropriate financial backing (e.g. probably a few services would spring up to assess the risk, and could be distributed via registrars).
For efficiency, I'd tweak the UDRP slightly, to help ensure collection (getting the money up front) and efficiency for both sides (for both #1 and #2 above), namely:
Step A: Have TM owner file a very brief "notice of dispute" (i.e. minimal legal costs to prepare, putting up their loser pay costs (as a deposit) up front. In essence, it would be kind of like a C&D with some "oomph" behind it, since it's backed by money saying "we will file a dispute, and we're showing how serious we are as we already deposited money if we lose!".
Step B: The relevant guarantor (depending on #1 or #2 above) or the registrant themselves has N days (e.g. N = 20, N = 30) to put up the same amount, should they wish to defend the UDRP.
Step C: If the money is not put up, the domain automatically is awarded to the UDRP complainant (i.e. no panel fees, no decision). A "no contest", "no mas" kind of outcome (for the boxing fans!).
Step D: If the money is put up, UDRP complainant has M days (M = 20, or 30, or whatever) to submit the complaint to the relevant provider. UDRP respondent has similar time limits for a response. It goes to a decision. Loser loses the money they put up in A or B above.
Of course, cases could go to court at any time, before, during, or after the domain dispute, with a similar loser pays provision.
Cybersquatters would hate this system. Legitimate registrants would face little risk (and that "risk" is taken on knowingly, the price of using the landrush). Bona fide TM holders too should like it -- most TM holders *hate* having to pay defensive registration fees, for domains they don't want to use. If the domain name ends up with a legitimate registrant who isn't cybersquatting, that's a win-win for the TM holder who doesn't have to register that domain in their own name. "Sunrise gamers" would also hate it (since they'd now have competition in landrush from legitimate registrants, as per one of my emails earlier today).
To give a concrete example, there's a company called "Apple Auto Glass" here in Canada:
Suppose they wanted to register Apple.glass (although, that's currently reserved for some reason), and "win" it in a landrush auction against the famous computer company. Apple the computer company should be delighted, as that's one less domain name they have to pay for that they'll never use. And Apple the computer company would not likely file a domain name dispute. Apple Auto Glass would face limited exposure/risk, in the eyes of their registrar or guarantor, etc. for any future UDRP costs, either. If instead a cybersquatter got it, the loser pays system would (1) help the famous Apple computer company reduce costs of curative actions, and (2) punish more directly the cybersquatter, beyond what's available now. A cybersquatter who is punished enough goes out of business (e.g. iREIT).
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
George, Paul, When analyzing the number of Sunrise registrations in the last round, how do you suggest factoring-in to the analysis the number of DPML/other blocking mechanisms, that function as defensive, non-resolving registrations across hundreds of new gTLDs? Once a trademark is 'blocked' through one of these additional marketplace RPMs (for several thousand dollars per mark) - currently offered on a voluntary basis as an alternative to Sunrise, to reduce social costs imposed by the new gTLD program, that mark is defensively 'registered' across hundreds of new gTLDs (at the same time, any of these DPML 'domains' can be overridden by a non-trademarked registrant upon request to the registry operator). On a related point, we have numbers on the number of domains blocked through these services? Thanks! Best, Claudio On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 7:11 AM George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote:
Hi folks,
On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 11:47 AM, Beckham, Brian <brian.beckham@wipo.int> wrote:
Finally, the suggestion that Sunrises may not be meeting their intended purpose due to low uptake statistically-speaking (also as to documented abuses) seems to widely miss the mark. As J Scott and others pointed out on the call, the intended purpose is to provide an opportunity to get ahead of infringing registrations. Whether that opportunity is taken up by a brand owner is an altogether separate question.
This analysis is deeply flawed. It attempts to justify the continued existence of the sunrise by measuring "theoretical benefits", despite the low uptake rate, as opposed to "actual realized benefits" (as measured by the actual low update, data that is actually observable), when comparing against the costs of the sunrise period (to competing good faith registrants, etc.).
For example, consider a public library branch that is in a large neighbourhood of 100,000 people, but is only used by 100 people per year. Using Brian's flawed analysis, the branch should be kept open, because "theoretically", 100,000 people have the opportunity to use it (even though 99,900 don't actually use it). Instead, it should be closed because only 100 people actually use it. The actual benefits (the usage by a mere 100 users) are what matter, when compared against the costs.
I agree with the analysis of Paul Keating in this thread, who properly weighed the actual benefits (low), vs the costs, and came out in favour of elimination of the sunrise period.
As I discussed in a previous thread on this topic, sunrise demand would shift to the landrush period when the sunrise period is eliminated. Appropriate safeguards could be instituted to reduce cybersquatting in that landrush (e.g. loser pays UDRP costs for landrush registrations, thereby raising the bar for those registrations, compared to general availability, or other mechanisms suggested). See the (long) thread in April 2017, starting with:
http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2017-April/001509.html
and with other replies at:
http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2017-April/date.html#1509
ICANN's history is riddled with examples of bad policy suggestions that had theoretical benefits, and whose introduction was based on speculative demand that never was realized. It's time to assess those policies properly and honestly, and admit that they were failures. The sunrise period for new gTLDs is a prime example. By Brian's analysis, it can **never** be eliminated, even if just 1 user actually used it, because its "theoretical" benefits can **always** be said to be high.
The purpose of this PDP is to do a proper and intellectually honest review, which means looking at the actual benefits. To do otherwise is to say that the outcome of this PDP is rigged and predetermined, and it doesn't matter what the actual data (as measured by actual usage), actual experience and actual statistical evidence, tells us.
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
Just to clarify on the overides, I believe they are actually limited only to other SMD file holders and/or other trademark owners. On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 8:20 AM claudio di gangi <ipcdigangi@gmail.com> wrote:
George, Paul,
When analyzing the number of Sunrise registrations in the last round, how do you suggest factoring-in to the analysis the number of DPML/other blocking mechanisms, that function as defensive, non-resolving registrations across hundreds of new gTLDs?
Once a trademark is 'blocked' through one of these additional marketplace RPMs (for several thousand dollars per mark) - currently offered on a voluntary basis as an alternative to Sunrise, to reduce social costs imposed by the new gTLD program, that mark is defensively 'registered' across hundreds of new gTLDs (at the same time, any of these DPML 'domains' can be overridden by a non-trademarked registrant upon request to the registry operator).
On a related point, we have numbers on the number of domains blocked through these services?
Thanks!
Best, Claudio
On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 7:11 AM George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote:
Hi folks,
On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 11:47 AM, Beckham, Brian <brian.beckham@wipo.int> wrote:
Finally, the suggestion that Sunrises may not be meeting their intended purpose due to low uptake statistically-speaking (also as to documented abuses) seems to widely miss the mark. As J Scott and others pointed out on the call, the intended purpose is to provide an opportunity to get ahead of infringing registrations. Whether that opportunity is taken up by a brand owner is an altogether separate question.
This analysis is deeply flawed. It attempts to justify the continued existence of the sunrise by measuring "theoretical benefits", despite the low uptake rate, as opposed to "actual realized benefits" (as measured by the actual low update, data that is actually observable), when comparing against the costs of the sunrise period (to competing good faith registrants, etc.).
For example, consider a public library branch that is in a large neighbourhood of 100,000 people, but is only used by 100 people per year. Using Brian's flawed analysis, the branch should be kept open, because "theoretically", 100,000 people have the opportunity to use it (even though 99,900 don't actually use it). Instead, it should be closed because only 100 people actually use it. The actual benefits (the usage by a mere 100 users) are what matter, when compared against the costs.
I agree with the analysis of Paul Keating in this thread, who properly weighed the actual benefits (low), vs the costs, and came out in favour of elimination of the sunrise period.
As I discussed in a previous thread on this topic, sunrise demand would shift to the landrush period when the sunrise period is eliminated. Appropriate safeguards could be instituted to reduce cybersquatting in that landrush (e.g. loser pays UDRP costs for landrush registrations, thereby raising the bar for those registrations, compared to general availability, or other mechanisms suggested). See the (long) thread in April 2017, starting with:
http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2017-April/001509.html
and with other replies at:
http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2017-April/date.html#1509
ICANN's history is riddled with examples of bad policy suggestions that had theoretical benefits, and whose introduction was based on speculative demand that never was realized. It's time to assess those policies properly and honestly, and admit that they were failures. The sunrise period for new gTLDs is a prime example. By Brian's analysis, it can **never** be eliminated, even if just 1 user actually used it, because its "theoretical" benefits can **always** be said to be high.
The purpose of this PDP is to do a proper and intellectually honest review, which means looking at the actual benefits. To do otherwise is to say that the outcome of this PDP is rigged and predetermined, and it doesn't matter what the actual data (as measured by actual usage), actual experience and actual statistical evidence, tells us.
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: I disagree. First, usage rates that define adequate usage were never set so wen we say “low uptake,” I would ask low uptake compared to what? More importantly, an arbitrary metric for satisfactory usage rate does not adequately equal to “actual value." The are other types of value that Sunrise provides other than uptake or usage rates. The first is the quality of registrations. Even at the current rates it is clear that some important brands have registered in domains important to them. This selectivity indicates that these registrations are highly valuable to them and, in turn to the reputation of the new gTLD program. I.e., not all Sunrise registrations have equal value and the ones that have been made are likely to have had significant value. When I say significant, I mean that the brand believed it was avoiding significant risk to the brand bypassing registering the name in those certain instances. If you are putting together a case that the Sunrise has insignificant value, you must consider the quantity and the quality of the registrations. Second, before equating low uptake to low value, you should understand why uptake is low. What is the awareness about Sunrise, RPMs in general, and even the whole new gTLD program among brands globally? What are the public & IP information campaigns concerning new gTLDs and RPMs? Maybe that is the problem we need to fix. To take your library analogy, if that library is in my neighborhood, I want to know why participation is low because I regard public libraries as a public asset. Are they making the right products available: (e.g., online access, videos and video games) to attract youth? I’d investigate reasons before just chucking the library. If you run for village council George, don’t tell the people about your position on libraries. Third, after-the-fact remedies are always significantly more expensive than before-the-fact. Even with loser-pays UDRP, invoking the UDRP or URS remedy takes several lawyer and management hours. Preventative costs are always 10-100x less that curative costs. Fourth, the existence of Sunrise provides value beyond that than can be calculated by usage rates. Governments, through the GAC, have attached great value to it.The importance of maintaining ICANN’s and the new gTLD program’s deference to valid trademark rights cannot be overestimated. I have personal experience indicating the US Dept. of Justice is very interested in RPMs. Abandonment of rights protection is an issue where governments might seek to shutter the program or leave the GAC. When the IRT recommended Sunrise as a voluntary RPM (only one of Claims and Sunrise was required), the GAC made Sunrise mandatory. To me the existence of Sunrise s cheap insurance. This is especially the case where relatively low uptake rate indicates low cost to and interference with registrants, Finally, notwithstanding your argument that low usage equates to low value, it seems to me that these are the results are those for which we had hoped. The existence of Sunrise demonstrates to the world (i.e., governments) that the new gTLD program is paying attention to rights protection. The fact that the uptake is relatively low leads one to two important conclusions. One, registrants are generally not barred from registering names of their choice. Two, brands are not overly panicked by the existence of new gTLDs and we can discredit arguments to the contrary. Sunrise, then, is only invoked in limited situations that brands acting individually have regarded as important. Practically speaking, remember that the original policy recommendation required no mandatory RPMs. That caused such consternation that the IRT was convened to create RPMs and then the GAC strengthened them. I think is is naive to think that this group could conclude that we abandon Sunrise and that would be the end of the story. Such a recommendation would lead to a several-month (or longer) process that would, in the end, reinstate Sunrise. If I were convinced we had solid arguments, I might be tempted to take on that challenge. For the reasons stated above, I don’t think yours is a winning or winnable argument. Best regards to all and think you for taking the time to read through this, Kurt
On Aug 9, 2017, at 12:11 PM, George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote:
Hi folks,
On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 11:47 AM, Beckham, Brian <brian.beckham@wipo.int> wrote:
Finally, the suggestion that Sunrises may not be meeting their intended purpose due to low uptake statistically-speaking (also as to documented abuses) seems to widely miss the mark. As J Scott and others pointed out on the call, the intended purpose is to provide an opportunity to get ahead of infringing registrations. Whether that opportunity is taken up by a brand owner is an altogether separate question.
This analysis is deeply flawed. It attempts to justify the continued existence of the sunrise by measuring "theoretical benefits", despite the low uptake rate, as opposed to "actual realized benefits" (as measured by the actual low update, data that is actually observable), when comparing against the costs of the sunrise period (to competing good faith registrants, etc.).
For example, consider a public library branch that is in a large neighbourhood of 100,000 people, but is only used by 100 people per year. Using Brian's flawed analysis, the branch should be kept open, because "theoretically", 100,000 people have the opportunity to use it (even though 99,900 don't actually use it). Instead, it should be closed because only 100 people actually use it. The actual benefits (the usage by a mere 100 users) are what matter, when compared against the costs.
I agree with the analysis of Paul Keating in this thread, who properly weighed the actual benefits (low), vs the costs, and came out in favour of elimination of the sunrise period.
As I discussed in a previous thread on this topic, sunrise demand would shift to the landrush period when the sunrise period is eliminated. Appropriate safeguards could be instituted to reduce cybersquatting in that landrush (e.g. loser pays UDRP costs for landrush registrations, thereby raising the bar for those registrations, compared to general availability, or other mechanisms suggested). See the (long) thread in April 2017, starting with:
http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2017-April/001509.html
and with other replies at:
http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2017-April/date.html#1509
ICANN's history is riddled with examples of bad policy suggestions that had theoretical benefits, and whose introduction was based on speculative demand that never was realized. It's time to assess those policies properly and honestly, and admit that they were failures. The sunrise period for new gTLDs is a prime example. By Brian's analysis, it can **never** be eliminated, even if just 1 user actually used it, because its "theoretical" benefits can **always** be said to be high.
The purpose of this PDP is to do a proper and intellectually honest review, which means looking at the actual benefits. To do otherwise is to say that the outcome of this PDP is rigged and predetermined, and it doesn't matter what the actual data (as measured by actual usage), actual experience and actual statistical evidence, tells us.
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
Hello, Without responding to every point: On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 8:50 AM, Kurt Pritz <kurt@kjpritz.com> wrote:
Third, after-the-fact remedies are always significantly more expensive than before-the-fact. Even with loser-pays UDRP, invoking the UDRP or URS remedy takes several lawyer and management hours. Preventative costs are always 10-100x less that curative costs.
The key difference is that curative rights would apply to a much smaller subset domain names, namely *only* the actual abusive registrations. So, even if the curative costs are higher for some names, on balance the total costs are actually *lower* with the elimination of sunrise. Most companies are *already* making this decision calculus, i.e. there are 40,000+ TMCH marks, yet only 130 or so sunrise registrations on average per TLD. So, more than 99% of TMCH registrants (and an even higher percentage of the millions of TM holders worldwide) are doing the math and finding that, for them, it's rational to wait for landrush or focus only on post-registration abuse, because one's overall costs of fighting cybersquatting are lower than if one registered in sunrise for every possible TLD. If "sunrise" is seen as an "insurance policy", most TM holders do the math and find that the "premiums" (costs of registering in each sunrise, instead of waiting for landrush or not registering at all) are too high, relative to the actual risks. Are there some TM holders who use the sunrise that are either (1) very paranoid about the risks (doing the math incorrectly), or (2) doing the math correctly and buying the insurance properly? (e.g. the most famous brands where possible damage might actually be high if they instead waited to register in landrush)? For group (1), we're doing them a service by eliminating the sunrise. They'll be better off, by not having bought the overpriced insurance policy. The "racket" of scaremongering that tricks them into usnig the sunrise periods is eliminated. For group (2), these are the largest companies who can *most afford* to deal with that damage (through the courts, UDRP/URS, etc.). They can deal effectively with whatever rules are on the table, and don't need "cheap insurance policies." If there was accurate/verified WHOIS and other accountability measures (loser pays for UDRP, etc.) to deter the professional cybersquatters, that helps group (2) and markholders in general far more than sunrise periods do. When Verizon and Microsoft sued in real court: http://www.loffs.org/verizon-vs-ireit/ http://www.loffs.org/verizon-v-navcatsys-et-al/ http://domainnamewire.com/2008/12/24/verizon-wins-33-million-in-cybersquatti... http://www.loffs.org/microsoft-cases/ those actions did far more to reduce cybersquatting than anything ICANN has done, as it held the bad actors directly accountable and sent a strong message to others. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
One additional comment, re: sunrise vs. landrush, to address some of the other points with respect to the claimed "exorbitant" costs of not registering in sunrise. Perhaps someone can draw a flow chart, but let's describe exactly what would happen if sunrises were eliminated. 1. Those currently registering domains in sunrise would save money (no longer paying out sunrise fees). 2. Those currently registering domains in sunrise presumably still value the domain name, so their demand/desire would shift to the landrush period. 3. (a) Scenario A: No one else desires the domain name in landrush -- the TM holder then pays the landrush price, instead of the sunrise price. 3. (b) Scenario B: Others desire the domain name during landrush. Proceed to auction. The TM holder can, if they're paranoid, outbid everyone else in landrush, and still end up owning the domain name. It's their choice whether to outbid everyone. (i) TM holder (who would have bought the domain in sunrise) outbids everyone else for the domain name. All the claimed "damage to consumers" doesn't occur, since the TM holder owns the domain. They can "insure" against future risks by simply outbidding all comers. (ii) TM holder is outbid by someone else. Either that someone else is (a) a legitimate registrant, or (b) a cybersquatter. So, the only "scenario" where we're concerned about, re: cybersquatting, is in point #3(b)(ii)(b). There, the markholder had a perfectly viable option to eliminate that cybersquatting, namely by outbidding all comers, to get to option #3(b)(i), but did their own risk assessment as to the costs of prevention (outbidding) vs. the costs of monitoring and curative rights (courts, UDRP/URS, etc.). By eliminating sunrise, we've allowed other legitimate registrants equal and fair access to the domain names (i.e. point #3(b)(ii)(a)). We've also reduced the effect of "gaming", because those with gamed TMs don't get any advantage in their bidding against others (someone who values the domain name more will just outbid them, in #3(b)(ii)(a)). One can even use the usual scaremongering TMCH to try to scare away those potential other bidders in that landrush auction, by the way. Most cybersquatting is on "cheap" domains, not domains won at auction, so the risk of #3(b)(ii)(b) is bad for a cybersquatter, in economic terms. They would have to outbid a Microsoft, Apple, Lego, Dell, etc. first, before even having a chance to inflict damage. And they'd be on the radar of those companies, presumably, by outbidding them. Cybersquatters aren't stupid --- they'll usually wait until the general availability, when the economics are more favourable (e.g. 99 cent domains, etc.). Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
And to make things even clearer, take note that registry operators could, if they wanted to, accomplish the system I described in my prior message (elimination of sunrise) by simply setting the price of sunrise registrations to $1 million (i.e. a high enough price to make the actual number of registrations equal to zero). They don't do so, because they actually can set a profit-maximize sunrise price to make *more money* from sunrise compared to just a pure landrush period, effectively preying on the sunrise registrants (earning more from them than would be the case if the sunrise had been eliminated!). So, eliminating the sunrise period actually helps even those 130 or so odd sunrise registrants (on average per TLD), as their effective costs would be lower, given that registries wouldn't be given the opportunity to prey on them via selection of the sunrise price. [I just alienated every registry operator!] But, registrants and TM holders would be better off, and the incentives would all be in proper alignment for desirable behaviours. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 10:02 AM, George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote:
One additional comment, re: sunrise vs. landrush, to address some of the other points with respect to the claimed "exorbitant" costs of not registering in sunrise.
Perhaps someone can draw a flow chart, but let's describe exactly what would happen if sunrises were eliminated.
1. Those currently registering domains in sunrise would save money (no longer paying out sunrise fees).
2. Those currently registering domains in sunrise presumably still value the domain name, so their demand/desire would shift to the landrush period.
3. (a) Scenario A: No one else desires the domain name in landrush -- the TM holder then pays the landrush price, instead of the sunrise price.
3. (b) Scenario B: Others desire the domain name during landrush. Proceed to auction. The TM holder can, if they're paranoid, outbid everyone else in landrush, and still end up owning the domain name. It's their choice whether to outbid everyone. (i) TM holder (who would have bought the domain in sunrise) outbids everyone else for the domain name. All the claimed "damage to consumers" doesn't occur, since the TM holder owns the domain. They can "insure" against future risks by simply outbidding all comers. (ii) TM holder is outbid by someone else. Either that someone else is (a) a legitimate registrant, or (b) a cybersquatter.
So, the only "scenario" where we're concerned about, re: cybersquatting, is in point #3(b)(ii)(b). There, the markholder had a perfectly viable option to eliminate that cybersquatting, namely by outbidding all comers, to get to option #3(b)(i), but did their own risk assessment as to the costs of prevention (outbidding) vs. the costs of monitoring and curative rights (courts, UDRP/URS, etc.).
By eliminating sunrise, we've allowed other legitimate registrants equal and fair access to the domain names (i.e. point #3(b)(ii)(a)). We've also reduced the effect of "gaming", because those with gamed TMs don't get any advantage in their bidding against others (someone who values the domain name more will just outbid them, in #3(b)(ii)(a)). One can even use the usual scaremongering TMCH to try to scare away those potential other bidders in that landrush auction, by the way.
Most cybersquatting is on "cheap" domains, not domains won at auction, so the risk of #3(b)(ii)(b) is bad for a cybersquatter, in economic terms. They would have to outbid a Microsoft, Apple, Lego, Dell, etc. first, before even having a chance to inflict damage. And they'd be on the radar of those companies, presumably, by outbidding them. Cybersquatters aren't stupid --- they'll usually wait until the general availability, when the economics are more favourable (e.g. 99 cent domains, etc.).
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
I think Kurt raises many good points. Just in terms of background on the GAC issue, in my view the context and political environment in which the IRT (and later the STI) recommendations were created can not be discounted. Often context is dispositive to outcome. In the other words, the IRT recommended the minimum set of protections, in order for those recommendations to be adopted into the Guidebook (which is why the need for the IRT existed to begin with). In hindsight, what occurred was those recommendations were changed (or in some cases, simply discarded), over the IRT's concerns. In fact, the IRT-based RPMs were made purely optional for registries in the subsequent version of the Applicant Guidebook that was published. In part, that contributed to the multi-year delay, and prompted the GAC to step-in. It's much harder for ICANN to reject GAC advice vs IPC advice (or any another GNSO group for that matter). One additional point: the overall number of defensive registrations can not be divorced from the level of demand for new gTLDs. In fact, there is probably some direct corollary between the overall level of demand and defensive registrations (setting aside the issue of market power, and whether some registries have market power over registrants, in effect imposing costs/registrations where they wouldn't otherwise exist). A lack of demand doesn't imply there shouldn't be any new gTLDs in the marketplace (or libraries for that matter- the image of books turning into dust in Orwell's Time Machine), but it does suggest these variables need to be considered together in a holistic manner. Best, Claudio On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 8:51 AM Kurt Pritz <kurt@kjpritz.com> wrote:
George:
I disagree.
First, usage rates that define adequate usage were never set so wen we say “low uptake,” I would ask low uptake compared to what?
More importantly, an arbitrary metric for satisfactory usage rate does not adequately equal to “actual value." The are other types of value that Sunrise provides other than uptake or usage rates.
The first is the quality of registrations. Even at the current rates it is clear that some important brands have registered in domains important to them. This selectivity indicates that these registrations are highly valuable to them and, in turn to the reputation of the new gTLD program. I.e., not all Sunrise registrations have equal value and the ones that have been made are likely to have had significant value. When I say significant, I mean that the brand believed it was avoiding significant risk to the brand bypassing registering the name in those certain instances.
If you are putting together a case that the Sunrise has insignificant value, you must consider the quantity and the quality of the registrations.
Second, before equating low uptake to low value, you should understand why uptake is low. What is the awareness about Sunrise, RPMs in general, and even the whole new gTLD program among brands globally? What are the public & IP information campaigns concerning new gTLDs and RPMs? Maybe that is the problem we need to fix.
To take your library analogy, if that library is in my neighborhood, I want to know why participation is low because I regard public libraries as a public asset. Are they making the right products available: (e.g., online access, videos and video games) to attract youth? I’d investigate reasons before just chucking the library. If you run for village council George, don’t tell the people about your position on libraries.
Third, after-the-fact remedies are *always* significantly more expensive than before-the-fact. Even with loser-pays UDRP, invoking the UDRP or URS remedy takes several lawyer and management hours. Preventative costs are always 10-100x less that curative costs.
Fourth, the existence of Sunrise provides value beyond that than can be calculated by usage rates. Governments, through the GAC, have attached great value to it.The importance of maintaining ICANN’s and the new gTLD program’s deference to valid trademark rights cannot be overestimated. I have personal experience indicating the US Dept. of Justice is very interested in RPMs. Abandonment of rights protection is an issue where governments might seek to shutter the program or leave the GAC. When the IRT recommended Sunrise as a voluntary RPM (only one of Claims and Sunrise was required), the GAC made Sunrise mandatory. To me the existence of Sunrise s cheap insurance. This is especially the case where relatively low uptake rate indicates low cost to and interference with registrants,
Finally, notwithstanding your argument that low usage equates to low value, it seems to me that these are the results are those for which we had hoped. The existence of Sunrise demonstrates to the world (i.e., governments) that the new gTLD program is paying attention to rights protection. The fact that the uptake is relatively low leads one to two important conclusions. One, registrants are generally not barred from registering names of their choice. Two, brands are not overly panicked by the existence of new gTLDs and we can discredit arguments to the contrary. Sunrise, then, is only invoked in limited situations that brands acting individually have regarded as important.
Practically speaking, remember that the original policy recommendation required no mandatory RPMs. That caused such consternation that the IRT was convened to create RPMs and then the GAC strengthened them. I think is is naive to think that this group could conclude that we abandon Sunrise and that would be the end of the story. Such a recommendation would lead to a several-month (or longer) process that would, in the end, reinstate Sunrise. If I were convinced we had solid arguments, I might be tempted to take on that challenge. For the reasons stated above, I don’t think yours is a winning or winnable argument.
Best regards to all and think you for taking the time to read through this,
Kurt
On Aug 9, 2017, at 12:11 PM, George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote:
Hi folks,
On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 11:47 AM, Beckham, Brian <brian.beckham@wipo.int> wrote:
Finally, the suggestion that Sunrises may not be meeting their intended purpose due to low uptake statistically-speaking (also as to documented abuses) seems to widely miss the mark. As J Scott and others pointed out on the call, the intended purpose is to provide an opportunity to get ahead of infringing registrations. Whether that opportunity is taken up by a brand owner is an altogether separate question.
This analysis is deeply flawed. It attempts to justify the continued existence of the sunrise by measuring "theoretical benefits", despite the low uptake rate, as opposed to "actual realized benefits" (as measured by the actual low update, data that is actually observable), when comparing against the costs of the sunrise period (to competing good faith registrants, etc.).
For example, consider a public library branch that is in a large neighbourhood of 100,000 people, but is only used by 100 people per year. Using Brian's flawed analysis, the branch should be kept open, because "theoretically", 100,000 people have the opportunity to use it (even though 99,900 don't actually use it). Instead, it should be closed because only 100 people actually use it. The actual benefits (the usage by a mere 100 users) are what matter, when compared against the costs.
I agree with the analysis of Paul Keating in this thread, who properly weighed the actual benefits (low), vs the costs, and came out in favour of elimination of the sunrise period.
As I discussed in a previous thread on this topic, sunrise demand would shift to the landrush period when the sunrise period is eliminated. Appropriate safeguards could be instituted to reduce cybersquatting in that landrush (e.g. loser pays UDRP costs for landrush registrations, thereby raising the bar for those registrations, compared to general availability, or other mechanisms suggested). See the (long) thread in April 2017, starting with:
http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2017-April/001509.html
and with other replies at:
http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2017-April/date.html#1509
ICANN's history is riddled with examples of bad policy suggestions that had theoretical benefits, and whose introduction was based on speculative demand that never was realized. It's time to assess those policies properly and honestly, and admit that they were failures. The sunrise period for new gTLDs is a prime example. By Brian's analysis, it can **never** be eliminated, even if just 1 user actually used it, because its "theoretical" benefits can **always** be said to be high.
The purpose of this PDP is to do a proper and intellectually honest review, which means looking at the actual benefits. To do otherwise is to say that the outcome of this PDP is rigged and predetermined, and it doesn't matter what the actual data (as measured by actual usage), actual experience and actual statistical evidence, tells us.
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
On 09.08.2017 05:50, Kurt Pritz wrote:
Practically speaking, remember that the original policy recommendation required no mandatory RPMs. That caused such consternation that the IRT was convened to create RPMs and then the GAC strengthened them. I think is is naive to think that this group could conclude that we abandon Sunrise and that would be the end of the story. Such a recommendation would lead to a several-month (or longer) process that would, in the end, reinstate Sunrise. If I were convinced we had solid arguments, I might be tempted to take on that challenge. For the reasons stated above, I don’t think yours is a winning or winnable argument.
We should not be railroaded into supporting a failing policy for fear that our evidence-based determination will be overridden at a higher level for political reasons. EFF supports (and, indeed, formally proposed some months ago) that Sunrise be abolished. -- 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
A handful of gamers does not equal a failing policy. Let's spend our time fruitfully addressing the gaming, rather than endlessly recirculating this argument. Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy | Valideus Ltd E: susan.payne@valideus.com T: +44 20 7421 8299 -----Original Message----- From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Jeremy Malcolm Sent: 09 August 2017 16:07 To: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] FOR REVIEW & DISCUSSION: Draft collated proposal for Sunrise-related data collection On 09.08.2017 05:50, Kurt Pritz wrote:
Practically speaking, remember that the original policy recommendation required no mandatory RPMs. That caused such consternation that the IRT was convened to create RPMs and then the GAC strengthened them. I think is is naive to think that this group could conclude that we abandon Sunrise and that would be the end of the story. Such a recommendation would lead to a several-month (or longer) process that would, in the end, reinstate Sunrise. If I were convinced we had solid arguments, I might be tempted to take on that challenge. For the reasons stated above, I don’t think yours is a winning or winnable argument.
We should not be railroaded into supporting a failing policy for fear that our evidence-based determination will be overridden at a higher level for political reasons. EFF supports (and, indeed, formally proposed some months ago) that Sunrise be abolished. -- 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
Hello, On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 11:16 AM, Susan Payne <susan.payne@valideus.com> wrote:
A handful of gamers does not equal a failing policy. Let's spend our time fruitfully addressing the gaming, rather than endlessly recirculating this argument.
But, 130 sunrise registrations per TLD equals a "successful" policy? The *proportion* of gaming is a huge factor, combined with the absolute level of uptake, to tip the scales here, as well as the costs to other prospective legitimate registrants from jumping the queue. What exactly is the standard for a "failed" policy at ICANN? As Jeremy rightly stated, the evidence should not be ignored. For far too long, ICANN has not defined any "success" or "fail" metrics, and that must change. I can see why every sunrise is a "success" if part of your business is built upon consulting revenue for sunrises: https://valideus.com/services/validation-services but most folks can easily adjust to a landrush-only system, instead, which is clearly superior overall. While some "sunrise consultants" might lose out, just as buggy whip producers went out of business, everyone else was better off -- that's progress. Indeed, some sunrise consultants might become "landrush consultants" instead... Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
George, I agree with you on the need for objective data and metrics, which all too often is sorely lacking in gTLD policy development. As per my previous note, what are your thoughts on how to calculate-in the effect of blocking services on the analysis of the number of Sunrise registrations? If "example.newgTLD" is 'registered' through a blocking service - such as the DPML , that domain is not registered during Sunrise across hundreds of gTLDs operated by the registry. In fact, the blocked domain represents the ultimate form of a defensive registration because it can not be used, and therefore no incremental benefits may accrue to the registrant (however slight). I believe the issue is further complicated because we do not know how many domains have been blocked in this manner through these services. Thanks! Best, Claudio On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 11:28 AM George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote:
Hello,
On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 11:16 AM, Susan Payne <susan.payne@valideus.com> wrote:
A handful of gamers does not equal a failing policy. Let's spend our time fruitfully addressing the gaming, rather than endlessly recirculating this argument.
But, 130 sunrise registrations per TLD equals a "successful" policy? The *proportion* of gaming is a huge factor, combined with the absolute level of uptake, to tip the scales here, as well as the costs to other prospective legitimate registrants from jumping the queue.
What exactly is the standard for a "failed" policy at ICANN? As Jeremy rightly stated, the evidence should not be ignored. For far too long, ICANN has not defined any "success" or "fail" metrics, and that must change.
I can see why every sunrise is a "success" if part of your business is built upon consulting revenue for sunrises:
https://valideus.com/services/validation-services
but most folks can easily adjust to a landrush-only system, instead, which is clearly superior overall. While some "sunrise consultants" might lose out, just as buggy whip producers went out of business, everyone else was better off -- that's progress. Indeed, some sunrise consultants might become "landrush consultants" instead...
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
Hopefully our private protections subteam will be able to shed some light on the utilization of registry blocking services. Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/Cell Twitter: @VLawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey Sent from my iPad On Aug 9, 2017, at 11:51 AM, claudio di gangi <ipcdigangi@gmail.com<mailto:ipcdigangi@gmail.com>> wrote: George, I agree with you on the need for objective data and metrics, which all too often is sorely lacking in gTLD policy development. As per my previous note, what are your thoughts on how to calculate-in the effect of blocking services on the analysis of the number of Sunrise registrations? If "example.newgTLD" is 'registered' through a blocking service - such as the DPML , that domain is not registered during Sunrise across hundreds of gTLDs operated by the registry. In fact, the blocked domain represents the ultimate form of a defensive registration because it can not be used, and therefore no incremental benefits may accrue to the registrant (however slight). I believe the issue is further complicated because we do not know how many domains have been blocked in this manner through these services. Thanks! Best, Claudio On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 11:28 AM George Kirikos <icann@leap.com<mailto:icann@leap.com>> wrote: Hello, On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 11:16 AM, Susan Payne <susan.payne@valideus.com<mailto:susan.payne@valideus.com>> wrote:
A handful of gamers does not equal a failing policy. Let's spend our time fruitfully addressing the gaming, rather than endlessly recirculating this argument.
But, 130 sunrise registrations per TLD equals a "successful" policy? The *proportion* of gaming is a huge factor, combined with the absolute level of uptake, to tip the scales here, as well as the costs to other prospective legitimate registrants from jumping the queue. What exactly is the standard for a "failed" policy at ICANN? As Jeremy rightly stated, the evidence should not be ignored. For far too long, ICANN has not defined any "success" or "fail" metrics, and that must change. I can see why every sunrise is a "success" if part of your business is built upon consulting revenue for sunrises: https://valideus.com/services/validation-services but most folks can easily adjust to a landrush-only system, instead, which is clearly superior overall. While some "sunrise consultants" might lose out, just as buggy whip producers went out of business, everyone else was better off -- that's progress. Indeed, some sunrise consultants might become "landrush consultants" instead... 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 _______________________________________________ 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
George, Not only is your personal attack on Susan (and our company, Valideus) inaccurate and misleading, but it potentially violates the ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior. Your assumptions about Valideus' business model is not at all true. Please stick to the issues at hand and refrain from attacks on anyone's motivations. As someone much more virtuous than I has stated "Those that live in glass houses should not throw stones." Best regards, Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com T: +1.703.635.7514 M: +1.202.549.5079 @Jintlaw -----Original Message----- From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of George Kirikos Sent: Wednesday, August 9, 2017 11:29 AM To: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] FOR REVIEW & DISCUSSION: Draft collated proposal for Sunrise-related data collection Hello, On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 11:16 AM, Susan Payne <susan.payne@valideus.com> wrote:
A handful of gamers does not equal a failing policy. Let's spend our time fruitfully addressing the gaming, rather than endlessly recirculating this argument.
But, 130 sunrise registrations per TLD equals a "successful" policy? The *proportion* of gaming is a huge factor, combined with the absolute level of uptake, to tip the scales here, as well as the costs to other prospective legitimate registrants from jumping the queue. What exactly is the standard for a "failed" policy at ICANN? As Jeremy rightly stated, the evidence should not be ignored. For far too long, ICANN has not defined any "success" or "fail" metrics, and that must change. I can see why every sunrise is a "success" if part of your business is built upon consulting revenue for sunrises: https://valideus.com/services/validation-services but most folks can easily adjust to a landrush-only system, instead, which is clearly superior overall. While some "sunrise consultants" might lose out, just as buggy whip producers went out of business, everyone else was better off -- that's progress. Indeed, some sunrise consultants might become "landrush consultants" instead... 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 Jeff, I respectfully disagree with your assessment as to it violating any expected standards of behaviour. Indeed, according to that policy: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/expected-standards-2016-06-28-en I was facilitating "transparency" by pointing out that those who want to not look at any evidence happen to have an economic interest in the maintenance of that policy. Which part was "inaccurate", since I cited their own website with discussion of sunrise-related services? https://valideus.com/services/validation-services "Whatever you want to achieve from your launch, we are here to help you. We can design and implement a phased Sunrise for rights owners not in the Trademark Clearinghouse, or a Limited Registration period for local businesses or an eligibility check on accredited professionals." "Underpinning our validation and verification services, we can work with you on the policies of your launch period including: Rules of eligibility including T&Cs for participation in a Sunrise or Limited Registration period;" As for "glass houses", and for Marc's later suggestion that I'm a "speculator whose primary interest is in ensuring as many domain names as possible are available to be speculated", I'm prepared to be judge. The total number of new new gTLDs I've ever registered is exactly ZERO (both personally, and through my companies), nor would I register any of them in the future, landrush or GA. I'm actually arguing *against* my own personal interests, improving access to new gTLD registrants, which might improve their odds of success! (and hurt .com) I'm prepared to live with that risk, against my own self-interest as a .com registrant, because it's just the right thing to do. I could sit back and watch new gTLDs continue with their train wreck, but instead I'm "guilty" of actually trying to improve the policies (against my own self-interest). I routinely am "exercising independent judgment based solely on what is in the overall best interest of Internet users and the stability and security of the Internet's system of unique identifiers, irrespective of personal interests and the interests of the entity to which an individual might owe their appointment." Can everyone say the same, when their positions just happen to coincide with their own personal interests or those of their companies? It's funny that folks would try to use the ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior as a means to try to censor accurate dialog, when it indeed says "Listen to the views of all stakeholders when considering policy issues" when folks like Susan are saying stuff like "Let's spend our time fruitfully addressing the gaming, rather than endlessly recirculating this argument." and others continually try to stifle different points of view? Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 11:56 AM, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> wrote:
George,
Not only is your personal attack on Susan (and our company, Valideus) inaccurate and misleading, but it potentially violates the ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior. Your assumptions about Valideus' business model is not at all true.
Please stick to the issues at hand and refrain from attacks on anyone's motivations. As someone much more virtuous than I has stated "Those that live in glass houses should not throw stones."
Best regards,
Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com T: +1.703.635.7514 M: +1.202.549.5079 @Jintlaw
-----Original Message----- From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of George Kirikos Sent: Wednesday, August 9, 2017 11:29 AM To: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] FOR REVIEW & DISCUSSION: Draft collated proposal for Sunrise-related data collection
Hello,
On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 11:16 AM, Susan Payne <susan.payne@valideus.com> wrote:
A handful of gamers does not equal a failing policy. Let's spend our time fruitfully addressing the gaming, rather than endlessly recirculating this argument.
But, 130 sunrise registrations per TLD equals a "successful" policy? The *proportion* of gaming is a huge factor, combined with the absolute level of uptake, to tip the scales here, as well as the costs to other prospective legitimate registrants from jumping the queue.
What exactly is the standard for a "failed" policy at ICANN? As Jeremy rightly stated, the evidence should not be ignored. For far too long, ICANN has not defined any "success" or "fail" metrics, and that must change.
I can see why every sunrise is a "success" if part of your business is built upon consulting revenue for sunrises:
https://valideus.com/services/validation-services
but most folks can easily adjust to a landrush-only system, instead, which is clearly superior overall. While some "sunrise consultants" might lose out, just as buggy whip producers went out of business, everyone else was better off -- that's progress. Indeed, some sunrise consultants might become "landrush consultants" instead...
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 I've never been anything other than transparent about where I work - it's in my SOI, my company is always identified in my signature, and I regularly refer to my experiences in my current and previous employment, and the experiences of my clients, during calls on this working group. I'd be astonished if anyone who was interested needed you to facilitate transparency for them. As you yourself have demonstrated from the quote below, our validations work is particularly with registry operators who want to voluntarily go further than the mandated minimum by controlling the eligibility of registrants in their TLD. Having no mandated sunrise wouldn't really impact on that - indeed since many registries want to be good actors we'd probably have greater scope and flexibility. Our validations work predates the new gTLD program. To save you wasting your time crawling through our websites, Valideus sister company is a corporate registrar, Com Laude, and since we acquire sunrise registrations for our clients, you could also say we earn revenue from sunrises by that means too. But then that would be true of landrush and GA too. However, if you knew anything about our business you would know that we don't push our clients to register in all TLD's, we counsel brand owners to take a measured and strategic approach, and we have been outspoken in recommending that our clients bypass some sunrises and registries altogether. As others have pointed out, we've all got a vested interest in some way or another, otherwise we wouldn't be spending so many enjoyable hours together on calls and email. I was not trying to stifle different points of view - merely pointing out that they have been made ad nauseum, repetition does not change their validity, and that in my opinion and that of many others on this working group, our time could be usefully spent trying to make practical progress on addressing the bad actors rather than penalizing the good. Feel free to reply as you wish (I wouldn't want to stifle you) but I won't be bothering to read or respond so don't draw any inferences from silence. Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy | Valideus Ltd E: susan.payne@valideus.com T: +44 20 7421 8299 -----Original Message----- From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of George Kirikos Sent: 09 August 2017 17:32 To: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] FOR REVIEW & DISCUSSION: Draft collated proposal for Sunrise-related data collection Hi Jeff, I respectfully disagree with your assessment as to it violating any expected standards of behaviour. Indeed, according to that policy: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/expected-standards-2016-06-28-en I was facilitating "transparency" by pointing out that those who want to not look at any evidence happen to have an economic interest in the maintenance of that policy. Which part was "inaccurate", since I cited their own website with discussion of sunrise-related services? https://valideus.com/services/validation-services "Whatever you want to achieve from your launch, we are here to help you. We can design and implement a phased Sunrise for rights owners not in the Trademark Clearinghouse, or a Limited Registration period for local businesses or an eligibility check on accredited professionals." "Underpinning our validation and verification services, we can work with you on the policies of your launch period including: Rules of eligibility including T&Cs for participation in a Sunrise or Limited Registration period;" As for "glass houses", and for Marc's later suggestion that I'm a "speculator whose primary interest is in ensuring as many domain names as possible are available to be speculated", I'm prepared to be judge. The total number of new new gTLDs I've ever registered is exactly ZERO (both personally, and through my companies), nor would I register any of them in the future, landrush or GA. I'm actually arguing *against* my own personal interests, improving access to new gTLD registrants, which might improve their odds of success! (and hurt .com) I'm prepared to live with that risk, against my own self-interest as a .com registrant, because it's just the right thing to do. I could sit back and watch new gTLDs continue with their train wreck, but instead I'm "guilty" of actually trying to improve the policies (against my own self-interest). I routinely am "exercising independent judgment based solely on what is in the overall best interest of Internet users and the stability and security of the Internet's system of unique identifiers, irrespective of personal interests and the interests of the entity to which an individual might owe their appointment." Can everyone say the same, when their positions just happen to coincide with their own personal interests or those of their companies? It's funny that folks would try to use the ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior as a means to try to censor accurate dialog, when it indeed says "Listen to the views of all stakeholders when considering policy issues" when folks like Susan are saying stuff like "Let's spend our time fruitfully addressing the gaming, rather than endlessly recirculating this argument." and others continually try to stifle different points of view? Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 11:56 AM, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> wrote:
George,
Not only is your personal attack on Susan (and our company, Valideus) inaccurate and misleading, but it potentially violates the ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior. Your assumptions about Valideus' business model is not at all true.
Please stick to the issues at hand and refrain from attacks on anyone's motivations. As someone much more virtuous than I has stated "Those that live in glass houses should not throw stones."
Best regards,
Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com T: +1.703.635.7514 M: +1.202.549.5079 @Jintlaw
-----Original Message----- From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of George Kirikos Sent: Wednesday, August 9, 2017 11:29 AM To: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] FOR REVIEW & DISCUSSION: Draft collated proposal for Sunrise-related data collection
Hello,
On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 11:16 AM, Susan Payne <susan.payne@valideus.com> wrote:
A handful of gamers does not equal a failing policy. Let's spend our time fruitfully addressing the gaming, rather than endlessly recirculating this argument.
But, 130 sunrise registrations per TLD equals a "successful" policy? The *proportion* of gaming is a huge factor, combined with the absolute level of uptake, to tip the scales here, as well as the costs to other prospective legitimate registrants from jumping the queue.
What exactly is the standard for a "failed" policy at ICANN? As Jeremy rightly stated, the evidence should not be ignored. For far too long, ICANN has not defined any "success" or "fail" metrics, and that must change.
I can see why every sunrise is a "success" if part of your business is built upon consulting revenue for sunrises:
https://valideus.com/services/validation-services
but most folks can easily adjust to a landrush-only system, instead, which is clearly superior overall. While some "sunrise consultants" might lose out, just as buggy whip producers went out of business, everyone else was better off -- that's progress. Indeed, some sunrise consultants might become "landrush consultants" instead...
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
Dear All: I personally believe that a continued discussion of the continuance of Sunrise Registrations is fruitless. As I recall our call on August 2nd, I believe we had solid consensus that the solution is to fix the loopholes in the current system, not eliminate the current system altogether. I realize that Jeremy and George have a viewpoint, but that viewpoint is not reflective of our discussions. I suggest we move on to more productive topics. 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 On 8/9/17, 12:00 PM, "gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Susan Payne" <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org on behalf of susan.payne@valideus.com> wrote: George I've never been anything other than transparent about where I work - it's in my SOI, my company is always identified in my signature, and I regularly refer to my experiences in my current and previous employment, and the experiences of my clients, during calls on this working group. I'd be astonished if anyone who was interested needed you to facilitate transparency for them. As you yourself have demonstrated from the quote below, our validations work is particularly with registry operators who want to voluntarily go further than the mandated minimum by controlling the eligibility of registrants in their TLD. Having no mandated sunrise wouldn't really impact on that - indeed since many registries want to be good actors we'd probably have greater scope and flexibility. Our validations work predates the new gTLD program. To save you wasting your time crawling through our websites, Valideus sister company is a corporate registrar, Com Laude, and since we acquire sunrise registrations for our clients, you could also say we earn revenue from sunrises by that means too. But then that would be true of landrush and GA too. However, if you knew anything about our business you would know that we don't push our clients to register in all TLD's, we counsel brand owners to take a measured and strategic approach, and we have been outspoken in recommending that our clients bypass some sunrises and registries altogether. As others have pointed out, we've all got a vested interest in some way or another, otherwise we wouldn't be spending so many enjoyable hours together on calls and email. I was not trying to stifle different points of view - merely pointing out that they have been made ad nauseum, repetition does not change their validity, and that in my opinion and that of many others on this working group, our time could be usefully spent trying to make practical progress on addressing the bad actors rather than penalizing the good. Feel free to reply as you wish (I wouldn't want to stifle you) but I won't be bothering to read or respond so don't draw any inferences from silence. Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy | Valideus Ltd E: susan.payne@valideus.com T: +44 20 7421 8299 -----Original Message----- From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of George Kirikos Sent: 09 August 2017 17:32 To: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] FOR REVIEW & DISCUSSION: Draft collated proposal for Sunrise-related data collection Hi Jeff, I respectfully disagree with your assessment as to it violating any expected standards of behaviour. Indeed, according to that policy: https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.icann.o... I was facilitating "transparency" by pointing out that those who want to not look at any evidence happen to have an economic interest in the maintenance of that policy. Which part was "inaccurate", since I cited their own website with discussion of sunrise-related services? https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fvalideus.co... "Whatever you want to achieve from your launch, we are here to help you. We can design and implement a phased Sunrise for rights owners not in the Trademark Clearinghouse, or a Limited Registration period for local businesses or an eligibility check on accredited professionals." "Underpinning our validation and verification services, we can work with you on the policies of your launch period including: Rules of eligibility including T&Cs for participation in a Sunrise or Limited Registration period;" As for "glass houses", and for Marc's later suggestion that I'm a "speculator whose primary interest is in ensuring as many domain names as possible are available to be speculated", I'm prepared to be judge. The total number of new new gTLDs I've ever registered is exactly ZERO (both personally, and through my companies), nor would I register any of them in the future, landrush or GA. I'm actually arguing *against* my own personal interests, improving access to new gTLD registrants, which might improve their odds of success! (and hurt .com) I'm prepared to live with that risk, against my own self-interest as a .com registrant, because it's just the right thing to do. I could sit back and watch new gTLDs continue with their train wreck, but instead I'm "guilty" of actually trying to improve the policies (against my own self-interest). I routinely am "exercising independent judgment based solely on what is in the overall best interest of Internet users and the stability and security of the Internet's system of unique identifiers, irrespective of personal interests and the interests of the entity to which an individual might owe their appointment." Can everyone say the same, when their positions just happen to coincide with their own personal interests or those of their companies? It's funny that folks would try to use the ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior as a means to try to censor accurate dialog, when it indeed says "Listen to the views of all stakeholders when considering policy issues" when folks like Susan are saying stuff like "Let's spend our time fruitfully addressing the gaming, rather than endlessly recirculating this argument." and others continually try to stifle different points of view? Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.leap.com... On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 11:56 AM, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> wrote: > George, > > Not only is your personal attack on Susan (and our company, Valideus) inaccurate and misleading, but it potentially violates the ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior. Your assumptions about Valideus' business model is not at all true. > > Please stick to the issues at hand and refrain from attacks on anyone's motivations. As someone much more virtuous than I has stated "Those that live in glass houses should not throw stones." > > Best regards, > > Jeffrey J. Neuman > Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA > 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 > Mclean, VA 22102, United States > E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com > T: +1.703.635.7514 > M: +1.202.549.5079 > @Jintlaw > > -----Original Message----- > From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org > [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of George Kirikos > Sent: Wednesday, August 9, 2017 11:29 AM > To: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org > Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] FOR REVIEW & DISCUSSION: Draft collated > proposal for Sunrise-related data collection > > Hello, > > On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 11:16 AM, Susan Payne <susan.payne@valideus.com> wrote: >> A handful of gamers does not equal a failing policy. Let's spend our time fruitfully addressing the gaming, rather than endlessly recirculating this argument. > > But, 130 sunrise registrations per TLD equals a "successful" policy? > The *proportion* of gaming is a huge factor, combined with the absolute level of uptake, to tip the scales here, as well as the costs to other prospective legitimate registrants from jumping the queue. > > What exactly is the standard for a "failed" policy at ICANN? As Jeremy rightly stated, the evidence should not be ignored. For far too long, ICANN has not defined any "success" or "fail" metrics, and that must change. > > I can see why every sunrise is a "success" if part of your business is built upon consulting revenue for sunrises: > > https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fvalideus.co... > > but most folks can easily adjust to a landrush-only system, instead, which is clearly superior overall. While some "sunrise consultants" > might lose out, just as buggy whip producers went out of business, everyone else was better off -- that's progress. Indeed, some sunrise consultants might become "landrush consultants" instead... > > Sincerely, > > George Kirikos > 416-588-0269 > https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.leap.com... > _______________________________________________ > 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... _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.or...
Hello, On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 3:18 PM, J. Scott Evans <jsevans@adobe.com> wrote:
I personally believe that a continued discussion of the continuance of Sunrise Registrations is fruitless. As I recall our call on August 2nd, I believe we had solid consensus that the solution is to fix the loopholes in the current system, not eliminate the current system altogether. I realize that Jeremy and George have a viewpoint, but that viewpoint is not reflective of our discussions. I suggest we move on to more productive topics.
Personal beliefs aside, is that an "official" request as a co-chair? I don't believe Jeremy has indicated that he has withdrawn his proposal, nor has there been any formal "consensus vote" on this topic, as per my understanding of PDP requirements. Indeed, making such a determination would be premature, given data collection and analysis is incomplete. Thus, as an active and open PDP question/proposal to be answered by the working group, it seems to me that it's as valid a topic for discussion as any other undecided and open topic. If some folks can't be swayed by any amount of evidence, or "know" the outcome in advance, I'd love to see them attempt to justify it in the PDP final report, as it would only invite a "minority report." "It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so." -- Mark Twain It seems ICANN policy is often based on the 2nd sentence of that quote, ignoring attempts at evidence-based policymaking. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
That was in personal opinion. If you'd like to continue debating this issue, feel free. Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 9, 2017, at 2:34 PM, George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote:
Hello,
On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 3:18 PM, J. Scott Evans <jsevans@adobe.com> wrote: I personally believe that a continued discussion of the continuance of Sunrise Registrations is fruitless. As I recall our call on August 2nd, I believe we had solid consensus that the solution is to fix the loopholes in the current system, not eliminate the current system altogether. I realize that Jeremy and George have a viewpoint, but that viewpoint is not reflective of our discussions. I suggest we move on to more productive topics.
Personal beliefs aside, is that an "official" request as a co-chair? I don't believe Jeremy has indicated that he has withdrawn his proposal, nor has there been any formal "consensus vote" on this topic, as per my understanding of PDP requirements. Indeed, making such a determination would be premature, given data collection and analysis is incomplete. Thus, as an active and open PDP question/proposal to be answered by the working group, it seems to me that it's as valid a topic for discussion as any other undecided and open topic.
If some folks can't be swayed by any amount of evidence, or "know" the outcome in advance, I'd love to see them attempt to justify it in the PDP final report, as it would only invite a "minority report."
"It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so." -- Mark Twain
It seems ICANN policy is often based on the 2nd sentence of that quote, ignoring attempts at evidence-based policymaking.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.leap.com... _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.or...
Absolutely agree. Best regards, Scott Sent from my T-Mobile 4G LTE Device -------- Original message -------- From: "J. Scott Evans via gnso-rpm-wg" <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Date: 8/9/17 3:18 PM (GMT-05:00) To: Susan Payne <susan.payne@valideus.com>, George Kirikos <icann@leap.com>, gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] FOR REVIEW & DISCUSSION: Draft collated proposal for Sunrise-related data collection Dear All: I personally believe that a continued discussion of the continuance of Sunrise Registrations is fruitless. As I recall our call on August 2nd, I believe we had solid consensus that the solution is to fix the loopholes in the current system, not eliminate the current system altogether. I realize that Jeremy and George have a viewpoint, but that viewpoint is not reflective of our discussions. I suggest we move on to more productive topics. 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<http://www.adobe.com> On 8/9/17, 12:00 PM, "gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Susan Payne" <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org on behalf of susan.payne@valideus.com> wrote: George I've never been anything other than transparent about where I work - it's in my SOI, my company is always identified in my signature, and I regularly refer to my experiences in my current and previous employment, and the experiences of my clients, during calls on this working group. I'd be astonished if anyone who was interested needed you to facilitate transparency for them. As you yourself have demonstrated from the quote below, our validations work is particularly with registry operators who want to voluntarily go further than the mandated minimum by controlling the eligibility of registrants in their TLD. Having no mandated sunrise wouldn't really impact on that - indeed since many registries want to be good actors we'd probably have greater scope and flexibility. Our validations work predates the new gTLD program. To save you wasting your time crawling through our websites, Valideus sister company is a corporate registrar, Com Laude, and since we acquire sunrise registrations for our clients, you could also say we earn revenue from sunrises by that means too. But then that would be true of landrush and GA too. However, if you knew anything about our business you would know that we don't push our clients to register in all TLD's, we counsel brand owners to take a measured and strategic approach, and we have been outspoken in recommending that our clients bypass some sunrises and registries altogether. As others have pointed out, we've all got a vested interest in some way or another, otherwise we wouldn't be spending so many enjoyable hours together on calls and email. I was not trying to stifle different points of view - merely pointing out that they have been made ad nauseum, repetition does not change their validity, and that in my opinion and that of many others on this working group, our time could be usefully spent trying to make practical progress on addressing the bad actors rather than penalizing the good. Feel free to reply as you wish (I wouldn't want to stifle you) but I won't be bothering to read or respond so don't draw any inferences from silence. Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy | Valideus Ltd E: susan.payne@valideus.com T: +44 20 7421 8299 -----Original Message----- From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of George Kirikos Sent: 09 August 2017 17:32 To: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] FOR REVIEW & DISCUSSION: Draft collated proposal for Sunrise-related data collection Hi Jeff, I respectfully disagree with your assessment as to it violating any expected standards of behaviour. Indeed, according to that policy: https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.icann.o... I was facilitating "transparency" by pointing out that those who want to not look at any evidence happen to have an economic interest in the maintenance of that policy. Which part was "inaccurate", since I cited their own website with discussion of sunrise-related services? https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fvalideus.co... "Whatever you want to achieve from your launch, we are here to help you. We can design and implement a phased Sunrise for rights owners not in the Trademark Clearinghouse, or a Limited Registration period for local businesses or an eligibility check on accredited professionals." "Underpinning our validation and verification services, we can work with you on the policies of your launch period including: Rules of eligibility including T&Cs for participation in a Sunrise or Limited Registration period;" As for "glass houses", and for Marc's later suggestion that I'm a "speculator whose primary interest is in ensuring as many domain names as possible are available to be speculated", I'm prepared to be judge. The total number of new new gTLDs I've ever registered is exactly ZERO (both personally, and through my companies), nor would I register any of them in the future, landrush or GA. I'm actually arguing *against* my own personal interests, improving access to new gTLD registrants, which might improve their odds of success! (and hurt .com) I'm prepared to live with that risk, against my own self-interest as a .com registrant, because it's just the right thing to do. I could sit back and watch new gTLDs continue with their train wreck, but instead I'm "guilty" of actually trying to improve the policies (against my own self-interest). I routinely am "exercising independent judgment based solely on what is in the overall best interest of Internet users and the stability and security of the Internet's system of unique identifiers, irrespective of personal interests and the interests of the entity to which an individual might owe their appointment." Can everyone say the same, when their positions just happen to coincide with their own personal interests or those of their companies? It's funny that folks would try to use the ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior as a means to try to censor accurate dialog, when it indeed says "Listen to the views of all stakeholders when considering policy issues" when folks like Susan are saying stuff like "Let's spend our time fruitfully addressing the gaming, rather than endlessly recirculating this argument." and others continually try to stifle different points of view? Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.leap.com... On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 11:56 AM, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> wrote: > George, > > Not only is your personal attack on Susan (and our company, Valideus) inaccurate and misleading, but it potentially violates the ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior. Your assumptions about Valideus' business model is not at all true. > > Please stick to the issues at hand and refrain from attacks on anyone's motivations. As someone much more virtuous than I has stated "Those that live in glass houses should not throw stones." > > Best regards, > > Jeffrey J. Neuman > Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA > 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 > Mclean, VA 22102, United States > E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com > T: +1.703.635.7514 > M: +1.202.549.5079 > @Jintlaw > > -----Original Message----- > From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org > [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of George Kirikos > Sent: Wednesday, August 9, 2017 11:29 AM > To: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org > Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] FOR REVIEW & DISCUSSION: Draft collated > proposal for Sunrise-related data collection > > Hello, > > On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 11:16 AM, Susan Payne <susan.payne@valideus.com> wrote: >> A handful of gamers does not equal a failing policy. Let's spend our time fruitfully addressing the gaming, rather than endlessly recirculating this argument. > > But, 130 sunrise registrations per TLD equals a "successful" policy? > The *proportion* of gaming is a huge factor, combined with the absolute level of uptake, to tip the scales here, as well as the costs to other prospective legitimate registrants from jumping the queue. > > What exactly is the standard for a "failed" policy at ICANN? As Jeremy rightly stated, the evidence should not be ignored. For far too long, ICANN has not defined any "success" or "fail" metrics, and that must change. > > I can see why every sunrise is a "success" if part of your business is built upon consulting revenue for sunrises: > > https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fvalideus.co... > > but most folks can easily adjust to a landrush-only system, instead, which is clearly superior overall. While some "sunrise consultants" > might lose out, just as buggy whip producers went out of business, everyone else was better off -- that's progress. Indeed, some sunrise consultants might become "landrush consultants" instead... > > Sincerely, > > George Kirikos > 416-588-0269 > https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.leap.com... > _______________________________________________ > 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... _______________________________________________ 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://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg This message contains information which may be confidential and legally privileged. Unless you are the addressee, you may not use, copy or disclose to anyone this message or any information contained in the message. If you have received this message in error, please send me an email and delete this message. Any tax advice provided by VLP is for your use only and cannot be used to avoid tax penalties or for promotional or marketing purposes.
I agree with J. Scott here. Based on the evidence from the 2012 round, we aren't going to get a consensus on eliminating the Sunrise requirement. Moreover, even if we could, it wouldn't matter as most registries would opt to do it anyway. So the debate is really an academic one and the interest in such an academic debate is waning with time and more emails flying back and forth. Let's move on. Jon
On Aug 9, 2017, at 3:18 PM, J. Scott Evans via gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> wrote:
Dear All:
I personally believe that a continued discussion of the continuance of Sunrise Registrations is fruitless. As I recall our call on August 2nd, I believe we had solid consensus that the solution is to fix the loopholes in the current system, not eliminate the current system altogether. I realize that Jeremy and George have a viewpoint, but that viewpoint is not reflective of our discussions. I suggest we move on to more productive topics.
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
On 8/9/17, 12:00 PM, "gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Susan Payne" <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org on behalf of susan.payne@valideus.com> wrote:
George I've never been anything other than transparent about where I work - it's in my SOI, my company is always identified in my signature, and I regularly refer to my experiences in my current and previous employment, and the experiences of my clients, during calls on this working group. I'd be astonished if anyone who was interested needed you to facilitate transparency for them.
As you yourself have demonstrated from the quote below, our validations work is particularly with registry operators who want to voluntarily go further than the mandated minimum by controlling the eligibility of registrants in their TLD. Having no mandated sunrise wouldn't really impact on that - indeed since many registries want to be good actors we'd probably have greater scope and flexibility. Our validations work predates the new gTLD program.
To save you wasting your time crawling through our websites, Valideus sister company is a corporate registrar, Com Laude, and since we acquire sunrise registrations for our clients, you could also say we earn revenue from sunrises by that means too. But then that would be true of landrush and GA too. However, if you knew anything about our business you would know that we don't push our clients to register in all TLD's, we counsel brand owners to take a measured and strategic approach, and we have been outspoken in recommending that our clients bypass some sunrises and registries altogether. As others have pointed out, we've all got a vested interest in some way or another, otherwise we wouldn't be spending so many enjoyable hours together on calls and email.
I was not trying to stifle different points of view - merely pointing out that they have been made ad nauseum, repetition does not change their validity, and that in my opinion and that of many others on this working group, our time could be usefully spent trying to make practical progress on addressing the bad actors rather than penalizing the good.
Feel free to reply as you wish (I wouldn't want to stifle you) but I won't be bothering to read or respond so don't draw any inferences from silence.
Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy | Valideus Ltd
E: susan.payne@valideus.com T: +44 20 7421 8299
-----Original Message----- From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of George Kirikos Sent: 09 August 2017 17:32 To: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] FOR REVIEW & DISCUSSION: Draft collated proposal for Sunrise-related data collection
Hi Jeff,
I respectfully disagree with your assessment as to it violating any expected standards of behaviour. Indeed, according to that policy:
https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.icann.o...
I was facilitating "transparency" by pointing out that those who want to not look at any evidence happen to have an economic interest in the maintenance of that policy. Which part was "inaccurate", since I cited their own website with discussion of sunrise-related services?
https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fvalideus.co...
"Whatever you want to achieve from your launch, we are here to help you. We can design and implement a phased Sunrise for rights owners not in the Trademark Clearinghouse, or a Limited Registration period for local businesses or an eligibility check on accredited professionals."
"Underpinning our validation and verification services, we can work with you on the policies of your launch period including:
Rules of eligibility including T&Cs for participation in a Sunrise or Limited Registration period;"
As for "glass houses", and for Marc's later suggestion that I'm a "speculator whose primary interest is in ensuring as many domain names as possible are available to be speculated", I'm prepared to be judge. The total number of new new gTLDs I've ever registered is exactly ZERO (both personally, and through my companies), nor would I register any of them in the future, landrush or GA.
I'm actually arguing *against* my own personal interests, improving access to new gTLD registrants, which might improve their odds of success! (and hurt .com) I'm prepared to live with that risk, against my own self-interest as a .com registrant, because it's just the right thing to do. I could sit back and watch new gTLDs continue with their train wreck, but instead I'm "guilty" of actually trying to improve the policies (against my own self-interest). I routinely am "exercising independent judgment based solely on what is in the overall best interest of Internet users and the stability and security of the Internet's system of unique identifiers, irrespective of personal interests and the interests of the entity to which an individual might owe their appointment." Can everyone say the same, when their positions just happen to coincide with their own personal interests or those of their companies?
It's funny that folks would try to use the ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior as a means to try to censor accurate dialog, when it indeed says
"Listen to the views of all stakeholders when considering policy issues"
when folks like Susan are saying stuff like "Let's spend our time fruitfully addressing the gaming, rather than endlessly recirculating this argument." and others continually try to stifle different points of view?
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.leap.com...
On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 11:56 AM, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> wrote:
George,
Not only is your personal attack on Susan (and our company, Valideus) inaccurate and misleading, but it potentially violates the ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior. Your assumptions about Valideus' business model is not at all true.
Please stick to the issues at hand and refrain from attacks on anyone's motivations. As someone much more virtuous than I has stated "Those that live in glass houses should not throw stones."
Best regards,
Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com T: +1.703.635.7514 M: +1.202.549.5079 @Jintlaw
-----Original Message----- From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of George Kirikos Sent: Wednesday, August 9, 2017 11:29 AM To: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] FOR REVIEW & DISCUSSION: Draft collated proposal for Sunrise-related data collection
Hello,
On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 11:16 AM, Susan Payne <susan.payne@valideus.com> wrote:
A handful of gamers does not equal a failing policy. Let's spend our time fruitfully addressing the gaming, rather than endlessly recirculating this argument.
But, 130 sunrise registrations per TLD equals a "successful" policy? The *proportion* of gaming is a huge factor, combined with the absolute level of uptake, to tip the scales here, as well as the costs to other prospective legitimate registrants from jumping the queue.
What exactly is the standard for a "failed" policy at ICANN? As Jeremy rightly stated, the evidence should not be ignored. For far too long, ICANN has not defined any "success" or "fail" metrics, and that must change.
I can see why every sunrise is a "success" if part of your business is built upon consulting revenue for sunrises:
https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fvalideus.co...
but most folks can easily adjust to a landrush-only system, instead, which is clearly superior overall. While some "sunrise consultants" might lose out, just as buggy whip producers went out of business, everyone else was better off -- that's progress. Indeed, some sunrise consultants might become "landrush consultants" instead...
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.leap.com... _______________________________________________ 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... _______________________________________________ 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://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
+1 to Jon / J. Scott. It's moot because the vast majority of registries will implement Sunrise even if not mandated. Jonathan Frost General Counsel Telephone: (+1)877-707-5752 100 SE 3rd Avenue, #1310 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33394 E-Mail: jonathan@get.club Website: www.get.club 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 and delete the original message. -----Original Message----- From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Jon Nevett Sent: Wednesday, August 9, 2017 3:38 PM To: J. Scott Evans <jsevans@adobe.com> Cc: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] FOR REVIEW & DISCUSSION: Draft collated proposal for Sunrise-related data collection I agree with J. Scott here. Based on the evidence from the 2012 round, we aren't going to get a consensus on eliminating the Sunrise requirement. Moreover, even if we could, it wouldn't matter as most registries would opt to do it anyway. So the debate is really an academic one and the interest in such an academic debate is waning with time and more emails flying back and forth. Let's move on. Jon
On Aug 9, 2017, at 3:18 PM, J. Scott Evans via gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> wrote:
Dear All:
I personally believe that a continued discussion of the continuance of Sunrise Registrations is fruitless. As I recall our call on August 2nd, I believe we had solid consensus that the solution is to fix the loopholes in the current system, not eliminate the current system altogether. I realize that Jeremy and George have a viewpoint, but that viewpoint is not reflective of our discussions. I suggest we move on to more productive topics.
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
On 8/9/17, 12:00 PM, "gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Susan Payne" <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org on behalf of susan.payne@valideus.com> wrote:
George I've never been anything other than transparent about where I work - it's in my SOI, my company is always identified in my signature, and I regularly refer to my experiences in my current and previous employment, and the experiences of my clients, during calls on this working group. I'd be astonished if anyone who was interested needed you to facilitate transparency for them.
As you yourself have demonstrated from the quote below, our validations work is particularly with registry operators who want to voluntarily go further than the mandated minimum by controlling the eligibility of registrants in their TLD. Having no mandated sunrise wouldn't really impact on that - indeed since many registries want to be good actors we'd probably have greater scope and flexibility. Our validations work predates the new gTLD program.
To save you wasting your time crawling through our websites, Valideus sister company is a corporate registrar, Com Laude, and since we acquire sunrise registrations for our clients, you could also say we earn revenue from sunrises by that means too. But then that would be true of landrush and GA too. However, if you knew anything about our business you would know that we don't push our clients to register in all TLD's, we counsel brand owners to take a measured and strategic approach, and we have been outspoken in recommending that our clients bypass some sunrises and registries altogether. As others have pointed out, we've all got a vested interest in some way or another, otherwise we wouldn't be spending so many enjoyable hours together on calls and email.
I was not trying to stifle different points of view - merely pointing out that they have been made ad nauseum, repetition does not change their validity, and that in my opinion and that of many others on this working group, our time could be usefully spent trying to make practical progress on addressing the bad actors rather than penalizing the good.
Feel free to reply as you wish (I wouldn't want to stifle you) but I won't be bothering to read or respond so don't draw any inferences from silence.
Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy | Valideus Ltd
E: susan.payne@valideus.com T: +44 20 7421 8299
-----Original Message----- From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of George Kirikos Sent: 09 August 2017 17:32 To: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] FOR REVIEW & DISCUSSION: Draft collated proposal for Sunrise-related data collection
Hi Jeff,
I respectfully disagree with your assessment as to it violating any expected standards of behaviour. Indeed, according to that policy:
https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.i cann.org%2Fresources%2Fpages%2Fexpected-standards-2016-06-28-en&data=0 2%7C01%7C%7C2c8f996441fa4f002f9608d4df483af0%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c 178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636378948705498919&sdata=T2a5Fb0UlM82eDYnoIAVZQzph iQiNrOcL%2FBo0P6q%2BIY%3D&reserved=0
I was facilitating "transparency" by pointing out that those who want to not look at any evidence happen to have an economic interest in the maintenance of that policy. Which part was "inaccurate", since I cited their own website with discussion of sunrise-related services?
https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fvalid eus.com%2Fservices%2Fvalidation-services&data=02%7C01%7C%7C2c8f996441f a4f002f9608d4df483af0%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636 378948705498919&sdata=aEW9GVofBaNRWZfun1p1dTwlGbE5qd1qZAbUK6dSXyA%3D&r eserved=0
"Whatever you want to achieve from your launch, we are here to help you. We can design and implement a phased Sunrise for rights owners not in the Trademark Clearinghouse, or a Limited Registration period for local businesses or an eligibility check on accredited professionals."
"Underpinning our validation and verification services, we can work with you on the policies of your launch period including:
Rules of eligibility including T&Cs for participation in a Sunrise or Limited Registration period;"
As for "glass houses", and for Marc's later suggestion that I'm a "speculator whose primary interest is in ensuring as many domain names as possible are available to be speculated", I'm prepared to be judge. The total number of new new gTLDs I've ever registered is exactly ZERO (both personally, and through my companies), nor would I register any of them in the future, landrush or GA.
I'm actually arguing *against* my own personal interests, improving access to new gTLD registrants, which might improve their odds of success! (and hurt .com) I'm prepared to live with that risk, against my own self-interest as a .com registrant, because it's just the right thing to do. I could sit back and watch new gTLDs continue with their train wreck, but instead I'm "guilty" of actually trying to improve the policies (against my own self-interest). I routinely am "exercising independent judgment based solely on what is in the overall best interest of Internet users and the stability and security of the Internet's system of unique identifiers, irrespective of personal interests and the interests of the entity to which an individual might owe their appointment." Can everyone say the same, when their positions just happen to coincide with their own personal interests or those of their companies?
It's funny that folks would try to use the ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior as a means to try to censor accurate dialog, when it indeed says
"Listen to the views of all stakeholders when considering policy issues"
when folks like Susan are saying stuff like "Let's spend our time fruitfully addressing the gaming, rather than endlessly recirculating this argument." and others continually try to stifle different points of view?
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269
https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.le ap.com%2F&data=02%7C01%7C%7C2c8f996441fa4f002f9608d4df483af0%7Cfa7b1b5 a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636378948705498919&sdata=Obk9L6SKb M0MiNyEgZ8DRGdo0oYh%2FEVxH6zcz%2BaCh70%3D&reserved=0
On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 11:56 AM, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> wrote:
George,
Not only is your personal attack on Susan (and our company, Valideus) inaccurate and misleading, but it potentially violates the ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior. Your assumptions about Valideus' business model is not at all true.
Please stick to the issues at hand and refrain from attacks on anyone's motivations. As someone much more virtuous than I has stated "Those that live in glass houses should not throw stones."
Best regards,
Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com T: +1.703.635.7514 M: +1.202.549.5079 @Jintlaw
-----Original Message----- From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of George Kirikos Sent: Wednesday, August 9, 2017 11:29 AM To: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] FOR REVIEW & DISCUSSION: Draft collated proposal for Sunrise-related data collection
Hello,
On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 11:16 AM, Susan Payne <susan.payne@valideus.com> wrote:
A handful of gamers does not equal a failing policy. Let's spend our time fruitfully addressing the gaming, rather than endlessly recirculating this argument.
But, 130 sunrise registrations per TLD equals a "successful" policy? The *proportion* of gaming is a huge factor, combined with the absolute level of uptake, to tip the scales here, as well as the costs to other prospective legitimate registrants from jumping the queue.
What exactly is the standard for a "failed" policy at ICANN? As Jeremy rightly stated, the evidence should not be ignored. For far too long, ICANN has not defined any "success" or "fail" metrics, and that must change.
I can see why every sunrise is a "success" if part of your business is built upon consulting revenue for sunrises:
https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fvali deus.com%2Fservices%2Fvalidation-services&data=02%7C01%7C%7C2c8f99644 1fa4f002f9608d4df483af0%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C 636378948705498919&sdata=aEW9GVofBaNRWZfun1p1dTwlGbE5qd1qZAbUK6dSXyA% 3D&reserved=0
but most folks can easily adjust to a landrush-only system, instead, which is clearly superior overall. While some "sunrise consultants" might lose out, just as buggy whip producers went out of business, everyone else was better off -- that's progress. Indeed, some sunrise consultants might become "landrush consultants" instead...
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.l eap.com%2F&data=02%7C01%7C%7C2c8f996441fa4f002f9608d4df483af0%7Cfa7b1 b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636378948705498919&sdata=Obk9L6 SKbM0MiNyEgZ8DRGdo0oYh%2FEVxH6zcz%2BaCh70%3D&reserved=0 _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.i cann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-rpm-wg&data=02%7C01%7C%7C2c8f996 441fa4f002f9608d4df483af0%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0% 7C636378948705498919&sdata=x8zW0U6EuzI6blzPyB0spG466g22tzozT7QDR2VdbM I%3D&reserved=0
gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org
https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.or g%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-rpm-wg&data=02%7C01%7C%7C2c8f996441fa4f002f960 8d4df483af0%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636378948705498919& sdata=x8zW0U6EuzI6blzPyB0spG466g22tzozT7QDR2VdbMI%3D&reserved=0
_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org
https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.ic ann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-rpm-wg&data=02%7C01%7C%7C2c8f99644 1fa4f002f9608d4df483af0%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C6 36378948705498919&sdata=x8zW0U6EuzI6blzPyB0spG466g22tzozT7QDR2VdbMI%3D &reserved=0
_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
Hello, On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 3:54 PM, Jonathan Frost <jonathan@get.club> wrote:
It's moot because the vast majority of registries will implement Sunrise even if not mandated.
For those now suggesting that the topic is "moot", then you should be in support of ICANN eliminating the requirement (i.e. at best you'd be indifferent), i.e. you should be supporting Jeremy's proposal, as it would simplify the ICANN new gTLD process/guidebook, etc., and would be one less policy for overworked volunteers to review every 5 or 10 or 20 years, etc. In other words, if the topic is "moot", why aren't you backing Jeremy's proposal to eliminate it? It's nonsensical to me to see an argument on the one hand that the topic is "moot" because registries will still implement it, but then support its continuation as a *mandated* ICANN policy requirement. If we have consensus to support Jeremy's proposal now, I would certainly not oppose moving on to other topics. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
George 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. Original Message From: George Kirikos Sent: Wednesday, August 9, 2017 4:04 PM To: gnso-rpm-wg Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] FOR REVIEW & DISCUSSION: Draft collated proposal for Sunrise-related data collection Hello, On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 3:54 PM, Jonathan Frost <jonathan@get.club> wrote:
It's moot because the vast majority of registries will implement Sunrise even if not mandated.
For those now suggesting that the topic is "moot", then you should be in support of ICANN eliminating the requirement (i.e. at best you'd be indifferent), i.e. you should be supporting Jeremy's proposal, as it would simplify the ICANN new gTLD process/guidebook, etc., and would be one less policy for overworked volunteers to review every 5 or 10 or 20 years, etc. In other words, if the topic is "moot", why aren't you backing Jeremy's proposal to eliminate it? It's nonsensical to me to see an argument on the one hand that the topic is "moot" because registries will still implement it, but then support its continuation as a *mandated* ICANN policy requirement. If we have consensus to support Jeremy's proposal now, I would certainly not oppose moving on to other topics. 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.
+1 move on. Best regards, Scott Scott R. Austin | Board Certified Intellectual Property Attorney | VLP Law Group LLP 101 NE Third Avenue, Suite 1500, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: (954) 204-3744 | Fax: (954) 320-0233 | SAustin@VLPLawGroup.com -----Original Message----- From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Nahitchevansky, Georges Sent: Wednesday, August 9, 2017 7:03 PM To: George Kirikos <icann@leap.com>; gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] FOR REVIEW & DISCUSSION: Draft collated proposal for Sunrise-related data collection George 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. Original Message From: George Kirikos Sent: Wednesday, August 9, 2017 4:04 PM To: gnso-rpm-wg Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] FOR REVIEW & DISCUSSION: Draft collated proposal for Sunrise-related data collection Hello, On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 3:54 PM, Jonathan Frost <jonathan@get.club> wrote:
It's moot because the vast majority of registries will implement Sunrise even if not mandated.
For those now suggesting that the topic is "moot", then you should be in support of ICANN eliminating the requirement (i.e. at best you'd be indifferent), i.e. you should be supporting Jeremy's proposal, as it would simplify the ICANN new gTLD process/guidebook, etc., and would be one less policy for overworked volunteers to review every 5 or 10 or 20 years, etc. In other words, if the topic is "moot", why aren't you backing Jeremy's proposal to eliminate it? It's nonsensical to me to see an argument on the one hand that the topic is "moot" because registries will still implement it, but then support its continuation as a *mandated* ICANN policy requirement. If we have consensus to support Jeremy's proposal now, I would certainly not oppose moving on to other topics. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http://www.leap.com/&c=E,1,Tot9mRsKnk6... _______________________________________________ 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 This message contains information which may be confidential and legally privileged. Unless you are the addressee, you may not use, copy or disclose to anyone this message or any information contained in the message. If you have received this message in error, please send me an email and delete this message. Any tax advice provided by VLP is for your use only and cannot be used to avoid tax penalties or for promotional or marketing purposes.
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/
I don't think anyone here is uncomfortable with debate. I think that's an artificial construct -- a "paper tiger". I understand that some participants will keep going until someone rings the bell and ends the bout, even if the only scorecard on which they're winning is their own. In such cases, I think it's up to the co-chairs, in their official capacities, to bring debates to a close when the time is ripe. I call on the co-chairs to do so in this case. We've reached the point of beating a dead horse on this subject, and no level of relentlessness, rhetoric, or "spin" is going to give the "Kill The Sunrise" proposal any more traction than it already has -- which is very little. I've read this thread as it rolled in, though I didn't have the time to respond, and others responded in line with my thoughts anyway. I try to keep an open mind; however, I saw nothing that would persuade me to change my position -- that the Sunrise largely works but there are loopholes that need to be fixed. In any event, I'll leave this one to the co-chairs. Greg On Thu, 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
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
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
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
+1 Brian J. Winterfeldt Co-Head of Global Brand Management and Internet Practice Mayer Brown LLP bwinterfeldt@mayerbrown.com<mailto:bwinterfeldt@mayerbrown.com> 1999 K Street, NW<x-apple-data-detectors://2/2> Washington, DC 20006-1101<x-apple-data-detectors://2/2> 202.263.3284<tel:202.263.3284> direct dial 202.830.0330<tel:202.830.0330> fax 1221 Avenue of the Americas<x-apple-data-detectors://3/0> New York, New York 10020-1001<x-apple-data-detectors://3/0> 212.506.2345<tel:212.506.2345> direct dial On Aug 9, 2017, at 3:19 PM, J. Scott Evans via gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>> wrote: Dear All: I personally believe that a continued discussion of the continuance of Sunrise Registrations is fruitless. As I recall our call on August 2nd, I believe we had solid consensus that the solution is to fix the loopholes in the current system, not eliminate the current system altogether. I realize that Jeremy and George have a viewpoint, but that viewpoint is not reflective of our discussions. I suggest we move on to more productive topics. 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<mailto:jsevans@adobe.com> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=www.adobe.com&data=01%7C0... On 8/9/17, 12:00 PM, "gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Susan Payne" <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of susan.payne@valideus.com<mailto:susan.payne@valideus.com>> wrote: George I've never been anything other than transparent about where I work - it's in my SOI, my company is always identified in my signature, and I regularly refer to my experiences in my current and previous employment, and the experiences of my clients, during calls on this working group. I'd be astonished if anyone who was interested needed you to facilitate transparency for them. As you yourself have demonstrated from the quote below, our validations work is particularly with registry operators who want to voluntarily go further than the mandated minimum by controlling the eligibility of registrants in their TLD. Having no mandated sunrise wouldn't really impact on that - indeed since many registries want to be good actors we'd probably have greater scope and flexibility. Our validations work predates the new gTLD program. To save you wasting your time crawling through our websites, Valideus sister company is a corporate registrar, Com Laude, and since we acquire sunrise registrations for our clients, you could also say we earn revenue from sunrises by that means too. But then that would be true of landrush and GA too. However, if you knew anything about our business you would know that we don't push our clients to register in all TLD's, we counsel brand owners to take a measured and strategic approach, and we have been outspoken in recommending that our clients bypass some sunrises and registries altogether. As others have pointed out, we've all got a vested interest in some way or another, otherwise we wouldn't be spending so many enjoyable hours together on calls and email. I was not trying to stifle different points of view - merely pointing out that they have been made ad nauseum, repetition does not change their validity, and that in my opinion and that of many others on this working group, our time could be usefully spent trying to make practical progress on addressing the bad actors rather than penalizing the good. Feel free to reply as you wish (I wouldn't want to stifle you) but I won't be bothering to read or respond so don't draw any inferences from silence. Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy | Valideus Ltd E: susan.payne@valideus.com<mailto:susan.payne@valideus.com> T: +44 20 7421 8299 -----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: 09 August 2017 17:32 To: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] FOR REVIEW & DISCUSSION: Draft collated proposal for Sunrise-related data collection Hi Jeff, I respectfully disagree with your assessment as to it violating any expected standards of behaviour. Indeed, according to that policy: https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.icann.o... I was facilitating "transparency" by pointing out that those who want to not look at any evidence happen to have an economic interest in the maintenance of that policy. Which part was "inaccurate", since I cited their own website with discussion of sunrise-related services? https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fvalideus.co... "Whatever you want to achieve from your launch, we are here to help you. We can design and implement a phased Sunrise for rights owners not in the Trademark Clearinghouse, or a Limited Registration period for local businesses or an eligibility check on accredited professionals." "Underpinning our validation and verification services, we can work with you on the policies of your launch period including: Rules of eligibility including T&Cs for participation in a Sunrise or Limited Registration period;" As for "glass houses", and for Marc's later suggestion that I'm a "speculator whose primary interest is in ensuring as many domain names as possible are available to be speculated", I'm prepared to be judge. The total number of new new gTLDs I've ever registered is exactly ZERO (both personally, and through my companies), nor would I register any of them in the future, landrush or GA. I'm actually arguing *against* my own personal interests, improving access to new gTLD registrants, which might improve their odds of success! (and hurt .com) I'm prepared to live with that risk, against my own self-interest as a .com registrant, because it's just the right thing to do. I could sit back and watch new gTLDs continue with their train wreck, but instead I'm "guilty" of actually trying to improve the policies (against my own self-interest). I routinely am "exercising independent judgment based solely on what is in the overall best interest of Internet users and the stability and security of the Internet's system of unique identifiers, irrespective of personal interests and the interests of the entity to which an individual might owe their appointment." Can everyone say the same, when their positions just happen to coincide with their own personal interests or those of their companies? It's funny that folks would try to use the ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior as a means to try to censor accurate dialog, when it indeed says "Listen to the views of all stakeholders when considering policy issues" when folks like Susan are saying stuff like "Let's spend our time fruitfully addressing the gaming, rather than endlessly recirculating this argument." and others continually try to stifle different points of view? Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.leap.com... On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 11:56 AM, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>> wrote: George, Not only is your personal attack on Susan (and our company, Valideus) inaccurate and misleading, but it potentially violates the ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior. Your assumptions about Valideus' business model is not at all true. Please stick to the issues at hand and refrain from attacks on anyone's motivations. As someone much more virtuous than I has stated "Those that live in glass houses should not throw stones." Best regards, Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> T: +1.703.635.7514 M: +1.202.549.5079 @Jintlaw -----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: Wednesday, August 9, 2017 11:29 AM To: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] FOR REVIEW & DISCUSSION: Draft collated proposal for Sunrise-related data collection Hello, On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 11:16 AM, Susan Payne <susan.payne@valideus.com<mailto:susan.payne@valideus.com>> wrote: A handful of gamers does not equal a failing policy. Let's spend our time fruitfully addressing the gaming, rather than endlessly recirculating this argument. But, 130 sunrise registrations per TLD equals a "successful" policy? The *proportion* of gaming is a huge factor, combined with the absolute level of uptake, to tip the scales here, as well as the costs to other prospective legitimate registrants from jumping the queue. What exactly is the standard for a "failed" policy at ICANN? As Jeremy rightly stated, the evidence should not be ignored. For far too long, ICANN has not defined any "success" or "fail" metrics, and that must change. I can see why every sunrise is a "success" if part of your business is built upon consulting revenue for sunrises: https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fvalideus.co... but most folks can easily adjust to a landrush-only system, instead, which is clearly superior overall. While some "sunrise consultants" might lose out, just as buggy whip producers went out of business, everyone else was better off -- that's progress. Indeed, some sunrise consultants might become "landrush consultants" instead... Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.leap.com... _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.or... __________________________________________________________________________ This email and any files transmitted with it are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail.
+1 Jonathan Matkowsky RiskIQ, Inc. On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 6:26 PM, Winterfeldt, Brian J. < BWinterfeldt@mayerbrown.com> wrote:
+1
*Brian J. Winterfeldt*
Co-Head of Global Brand Management and Internet Practice
Mayer Brown LLP
bwinterfeldt@mayerbrown.com
1999 K Street, NW
Washington, DC 20006-1101
202.263.3284 direct dial
202.830.0330 fax
1221 Avenue of the Americas
New York, New York 10020-1001
212.506.2345 direct dial
On Aug 9, 2017, at 3:19 PM, J. Scott Evans via gnso-rpm-wg < gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> wrote:
Dear All:
I personally believe that a continued discussion of the continuance of Sunrise Registrations is fruitless. As I recall our call on August 2nd, I believe we had solid consensus that the solution is to fix the loopholes in the current system, not eliminate the current system altogether. I realize that Jeremy and George have a viewpoint, but that viewpoint is not reflective of our discussions. I suggest we move on to more productive topics.
J. Scott Evans 408.536.5336 <(408)%20536-5336> (tel) 345 Park Avenue, Mail Stop W11-544 Director, Trademarks 408.709.6162 <(408)%20709-6162> (cell) San Jose, CA, 95110, USA Adobe. Make It an Experience. jsevans@adobe.com https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url= www.adobe.com&data=01%7C01%7CBwinterfeldt%40mayerbrown.com% 7C78fe47c8bf91416421a808d4df5b8175%7C09131022b7854e6d8d42916975e5 1262%7C0&sdata=uF18LLvy1xAW1V8OK49BJX9UqZ5BRbvdY4h1PI%2BUG1M%3D&reserved=0
On 8/9/17, 12:00 PM, "gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Susan Payne" <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org on behalf of susan.payne@valideus.com> wrote:
George I've never been anything other than transparent about where I work - it's in my SOI, my company is always identified in my signature, and I regularly refer to my experiences in my current and previous employment, and the experiences of my clients, during calls on this working group. I'd be astonished if anyone who was interested needed you to facilitate transparency for them.
As you yourself have demonstrated from the quote below, our validations work is particularly with registry operators who want to voluntarily go further than the mandated minimum by controlling the eligibility of registrants in their TLD. Having no mandated sunrise wouldn't really impact on that - indeed since many registries want to be good actors we'd probably have greater scope and flexibility. Our validations work predates the new gTLD program.
To save you wasting your time crawling through our websites, Valideus sister company is a corporate registrar, Com Laude, and since we acquire sunrise registrations for our clients, you could also say we earn revenue from sunrises by that means too. But then that would be true of landrush and GA too. However, if you knew anything about our business you would know that we don't push our clients to register in all TLD's, we counsel brand owners to take a measured and strategic approach, and we have been outspoken in recommending that our clients bypass some sunrises and registries altogether. As others have pointed out, we've all got a vested interest in some way or another, otherwise we wouldn't be spending so many enjoyable hours together on calls and email.
I was not trying to stifle different points of view - merely pointing out that they have been made ad nauseum, repetition does not change their validity, and that in my opinion and that of many others on this working group, our time could be usefully spent trying to make practical progress on addressing the bad actors rather than penalizing the good.
Feel free to reply as you wish (I wouldn't want to stifle you) but I won't be bothering to read or respond so don't draw any inferences from silence.
Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy | Valideus Ltd
E: susan.payne@valideus.com T: +44 20 7421 8299 <+44%2020%207421%208299>
-----Original Message----- From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@ icann.org <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of George Kirikos Sent: 09 August 2017 17:32 To: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] FOR REVIEW & DISCUSSION: Draft collated proposal for Sunrise-related data collection
Hi Jeff,
I respectfully disagree with your assessment as to it violating any expected standards of behaviour. Indeed, according to that policy:
https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url= https%3A%2F%2Fwww.icann.org%2Fresources%2Fpages% 2Fexpected-standards-2016-06-28-en&data=02%7C01%7C% 7C2c8f996441fa4f002f9608d4df483af0%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178de cee1%7C0%7C0%7C636378948705498919&sdata=T2a5Fb0UlM82eDYnoIAVZQzphiQiNr OcL%2FBo0P6q%2BIY%3D&reserved=0
I was facilitating "transparency" by pointing out that those who want to not look at any evidence happen to have an economic interest in the maintenance of that policy. Which part was "inaccurate", since I cited their own website with discussion of sunrise-related services?
https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url= https%3A%2F%2Fvalideus.com%2Fservices%2Fvalidation- services&data=02%7C01%7C%7C2c8f996441fa4f002f9608d4df483af0% 7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636378948705498919&sdata= aEW9GVofBaNRWZfun1p1dTwlGbE5qd1qZAbUK6dSXyA%3D&reserved=0
"Whatever you want to achieve from your launch, we are here to help you. We can design and implement a phased Sunrise for rights owners not in the Trademark Clearinghouse, or a Limited Registration period for local businesses or an eligibility check on accredited professionals."
"Underpinning our validation and verification services, we can work with you on the policies of your launch period including:
Rules of eligibility including T&Cs for participation in a Sunrise or Limited Registration period;"
As for "glass houses", and for Marc's later suggestion that I'm a "speculator whose primary interest is in ensuring as many domain names as possible are available to be speculated", I'm prepared to be judge. The total number of new new gTLDs I've ever registered is exactly ZERO (both personally, and through my companies), nor would I register any of them in the future, landrush or GA.
I'm actually arguing *against* my own personal interests, improving access to new gTLD registrants, which might improve their odds of success! (and hurt .com) I'm prepared to live with that risk, against my own self-interest as a .com registrant, because it's just the right thing to do. I could sit back and watch new gTLDs continue with their train wreck, but instead I'm "guilty" of actually trying to improve the policies (against my own self-interest). I routinely am "exercising independent judgment based solely on what is in the overall best interest of Internet users and the stability and security of the Internet's system of unique identifiers, irrespective of personal interests and the interests of the entity to which an individual might owe their appointment." Can everyone say the same, when their positions just happen to coincide with their own personal interests or those of their companies?
It's funny that folks would try to use the ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior as a means to try to censor accurate dialog, when it indeed says
"Listen to the views of all stakeholders when considering policy issues"
when folks like Susan are saying stuff like "Let's spend our time fruitfully addressing the gaming, rather than endlessly recirculating this argument." and others continually try to stifle different points of view?
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 <(416)%20588-0269> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url= http%3A%2F%2Fwww.leap.com%2F&data=02%7C01%7C% 7C2c8f996441fa4f002f9608d4df483af0%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178de cee1%7C0%7C0%7C636378948705498919&sdata=Obk9L6SKbM0MiNyEgZ8DRGdo0oYh% 2FEVxH6zcz%2BaCh70%3D&reserved=0
On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 11:56 AM, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> wrote:
George,
Not only is your personal attack on Susan (and our company, Valideus) inaccurate and misleading, but it potentially violates the ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior. Your assumptions about Valideus' business model is not at all true.
Please stick to the issues at hand and refrain from attacks on anyone's motivations. As someone much more virtuous than I has stated "Those that live in glass houses should not throw stones."
Best regards,
Jeffrey J. Neuman
Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA
1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600
Mclean, VA 22102, United States
E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com
T: +1.703.635.7514 <(703)%20635-7514>
M: +1.202.549.5079 <(202)%20549-5079>
@Jintlaw
-----Original Message-----
From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org
[mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of George Kirikos
Sent: Wednesday, August 9, 2017 11:29 AM
To: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org
Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] FOR REVIEW & DISCUSSION: Draft collated
proposal for Sunrise-related data collection
Hello,
On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 11:16 AM, Susan Payne <susan.payne@valideus.com> wrote:
A handful of gamers does not equal a failing policy. Let's spend our time fruitfully addressing the gaming, rather than endlessly recirculating this argument.
But, 130 sunrise registrations per TLD equals a "successful" policy?
The *proportion* of gaming is a huge factor, combined with the absolute level of uptake, to tip the scales here, as well as the costs to other prospective legitimate registrants from jumping the queue.
What exactly is the standard for a "failed" policy at ICANN? As Jeremy rightly stated, the evidence should not be ignored. For far too long, ICANN has not defined any "success" or "fail" metrics, and that must change.
I can see why every sunrise is a "success" if part of your business is built upon consulting revenue for sunrises:
https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url= https%3A%2F%2Fvalideus.com%2Fservices%2Fvalidation- services&data=02%7C01%7C%7C2c8f996441fa4f002f9608d4df483af0% 7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636378948705498919&sdata= aEW9GVofBaNRWZfun1p1dTwlGbE5qd1qZAbUK6dSXyA%3D&reserved=0
but most folks can easily adjust to a landrush-only system, instead, which is clearly superior overall. While some "sunrise consultants"
might lose out, just as buggy whip producers went out of business, everyone else was better off -- that's progress. Indeed, some sunrise consultants might become "landrush consultants" instead...
Sincerely,
George Kirikos
416-588-0269 <(416)%20588-0269>
https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url= http%3A%2F%2Fwww.leap.com%2F&data=02%7C01%7C% 7C2c8f996441fa4f002f9608d4df483af0%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178de cee1%7C0%7C0%7C636378948705498919&sdata=Obk9L6SKbM0MiNyEgZ8DRGdo0oYh% 2FEVxH6zcz%2BaCh70%3D&reserved=0
_______________________________________________
gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org
https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url= https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso- rpm-wg&data=02%7C01%7C%7C2c8f996441fa4f002f9608d4df483af0% 7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636378948705498919&sdata= x8zW0U6EuzI6blzPyB0spG466g22tzozT7QDR2VdbMI%3D&reserved=0
_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url= https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso- rpm-wg&data=02%7C01%7C%7C2c8f996441fa4f002f9608d4df483af0% 7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636378948705498919&sdata= x8zW0U6EuzI6blzPyB0spG466g22tzozT7QDR2VdbMI%3D&reserved=0 _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url= https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso- rpm-wg&data=02%7C01%7C%7C2c8f996441fa4f002f9608d4df483af0% 7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636378948705498919&sdata= x8zW0U6EuzI6blzPyB0spG466g22tzozT7QDR2VdbMI%3D&reserved=0
_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url= https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso- rpm-wg&data=01%7C01%7CBwinterfeldt%40mayerbrown.com% 7C78fe47c8bf91416421a808d4df5b8175%7C09131022b7854e6d8d42916975e5 1262%7C0&sdata=VCAppCSJR0Qtp2q0QlG7v3pcfQW8Y8iEnMSEfxp6oiw%3D&reserved=0
__________________________________________________________________________
This email and any files transmitted with it are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail.
_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
-- ******************************************************************* This message was sent from RiskIQ, and is intended only for the designated recipient(s). It may contain confidential or proprietary information and may be subject to confidentiality protections. If you are not a designated recipient, you may not review, copy or distribute this message. If you receive this in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete this message. Thank you. *******************************************************************
George, Let's not throw stones here and make personal attacks. Virtually everyone on this list and participating in this WG represents some interest. One could point to you as a speculator whose primary interest is in ensuring as many domain names as possible are available to be speculated. But this is not helpful. With respect to 130 sunrise registrations over TLD, it is not useful or fair to average the numbers because many of the new TLDs do not have much value to brands (or arguably anyone else for that matter based on registration numbers). Brands (at least those whose were are of and understood sunrise) were more active in sunrise in the TLDs that represented more significant risks to them, which likely differed by brand, and was determined by factors such as risk tolerance and whether the string was related to the goods and services for which the mark was used. Furthermore, as others have stated, how many times the RPM was used Oded not necessarily equate to the RPMs value. Best regards, Marc H. Trachtenberg Shareholder Greenberg Traurig, LLP 77 West Wacker Drive Chicago, Illinois 60601 Phone (312) 456-1020 Mobile (773) 677-3305
On Aug 9, 2017, at 10:29 AM, George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote:
Hello,
On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 11:16 AM, Susan Payne <susan.payne@valideus.com> wrote: A handful of gamers does not equal a failing policy. Let's spend our time fruitfully addressing the gaming, rather than endlessly recirculating this argument.
But, 130 sunrise registrations per TLD equals a "successful" policy? The *proportion* of gaming is a huge factor, combined with the absolute level of uptake, to tip the scales here, as well as the costs to other prospective legitimate registrants from jumping the queue.
What exactly is the standard for a "failed" policy at ICANN? As Jeremy rightly stated, the evidence should not be ignored. For far too long, ICANN has not defined any "success" or "fail" metrics, and that must change.
I can see why every sunrise is a "success" if part of your business is built upon consulting revenue for sunrises:
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__valideus.com_services_v...
but most folks can easily adjust to a landrush-only system, instead, which is clearly superior overall. While some "sunrise consultants" might lose out, just as buggy whip producers went out of business, everyone else was better off -- that's progress. Indeed, some sunrise consultants might become "landrush consultants" instead...
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.leap.com_&d=DwICAg&c... _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org 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.
+1 on all points. Kiran Malancharuvil Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138 (m) Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.
On Aug 9, 2017, at 8:58 AM, "trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com" <trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com> wrote:
George,
Let's not throw stones here and make personal attacks. Virtually everyone on this list and participating in this WG represents some interest. One could point to you as a speculator whose primary interest is in ensuring as many domain names as possible are available to be speculated. But this is not helpful.
With respect to 130 sunrise registrations over TLD, it is not useful or fair to average the numbers because many of the new TLDs do not have much value to brands (or arguably anyone else for that matter based on registration numbers). Brands (at least those whose were are of and understood sunrise) were more active in sunrise in the TLDs that represented more significant risks to them, which likely differed by brand, and was determined by factors such as risk tolerance and whether the string was related to the goods and services for which the mark was used.
Furthermore, as others have stated, how many times the RPM was used Oded not necessarily equate to the RPMs value.
Best regards,
Marc H. Trachtenberg Shareholder Greenberg Traurig, LLP 77 West Wacker Drive Chicago, Illinois 60601 Phone (312) 456-1020 Mobile (773) 677-3305
On Aug 9, 2017, at 10:29 AM, George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote:
Hello,
On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 11:16 AM, Susan Payne <susan.payne@valideus.com> wrote: A handful of gamers does not equal a failing policy. Let's spend our time fruitfully addressing the gaming, rather than endlessly recirculating this argument.
But, 130 sunrise registrations per TLD equals a "successful" policy? The *proportion* of gaming is a huge factor, combined with the absolute level of uptake, to tip the scales here, as well as the costs to other prospective legitimate registrants from jumping the queue.
What exactly is the standard for a "failed" policy at ICANN? As Jeremy rightly stated, the evidence should not be ignored. For far too long, ICANN has not defined any "success" or "fail" metrics, and that must change.
I can see why every sunrise is a "success" if part of your business is built upon consulting revenue for sunrises:
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__valideus.com_services_v...
but most folks can easily adjust to a landrush-only system, instead, which is clearly superior overall. While some "sunrise consultants" might lose out, just as buggy whip producers went out of business, everyone else was better off -- that's progress. Indeed, some sunrise consultants might become "landrush consultants" instead...
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.leap.com_&d=DwICAg&c... _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org 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. _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
George: The proportion of gaming is quite small. The harm you claim to legitimate registrants is unfounded and yet you persist with trying to scrap a system and replace with a landrush only system which we know from experience is far from optimal, has led to much abuse and heavy costs on brand owners, etc. Your loser pays proposal is unworkable and the proposal to scrap sunrise by your colleagues sounds like those who want to scrap the very limited healthcare system in the US but have no workable plan to put in place to prevent abuse and address the serious cost issues that can readily be proven. Sunrise has proven to be beneficial, and a simple cost benefit analysis shows its usefulness both to limit abuse, reduce enforcement costs, prevent fraud on consumers etc. Basically you want to create new structures that will lead to new problems and which will likely ultimately burden one community fairly strongly -- and all of this in the name of some particular claimed harm that has not been proven to exist in the first place and now on some self-serving claim of "failed policy" with no real proof. Rather than going back and forth on the issue of the existence of sunrise, why not focus on improving the RPM to address the small amount of gaming that has occurred from speculators? Lastly, I agree with Jeff that comments attacking the integrity of RPM members is unwarranted as such types of attacks could be made against any number of folks who might seen as having particular agendas. Let's keep this civil and work through the problems. -----Original Message----- From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of George Kirikos Sent: Wednesday, August 09, 2017 11:29 AM To: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] FOR REVIEW & DISCUSSION: Draft collated proposal for Sunrise-related data collection Hello, On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 11:16 AM, Susan Payne <susan.payne@valideus.com> wrote:
A handful of gamers does not equal a failing policy. Let's spend our time fruitfully addressing the gaming, rather than endlessly recirculating this argument.
But, 130 sunrise registrations per TLD equals a "successful" policy? The *proportion* of gaming is a huge factor, combined with the absolute level of uptake, to tip the scales here, as well as the costs to other prospective legitimate registrants from jumping the queue. What exactly is the standard for a "failed" policy at ICANN? As Jeremy rightly stated, the evidence should not be ignored. For far too long, ICANN has not defined any "success" or "fail" metrics, and that must change. I can see why every sunrise is a "success" if part of your business is built upon consulting revenue for sunrises: https://valideus.com/services/validation-services but most folks can easily adjust to a landrush-only system, instead, which is clearly superior overall. While some "sunrise consultants" might lose out, just as buggy whip producers went out of business, everyone else was better off -- that's progress. Indeed, some sunrise consultants might become "landrush consultants" instead... 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.
+ 1 On Jeremy’s comment, we should not rush only to meet a deadline, ICANN nor the DNS won’t stop working because we don’t have a new round of gTLDs, if we take this seriously we should advance only with strong evidence that we are in the best path possible given our situation, specially when we are not improvising anymore, we have a first experience to build a better process, which should be challenged in every aspect to have one that is more resilient and legitimate.
On Aug 9, 2017, at 12:07 PM, Jeremy Malcolm <jmalcolm@EFF.ORG> wrote:
On 09.08.2017 05:50, Kurt Pritz wrote:
Practically speaking, remember that the original policy recommendation required no mandatory RPMs. That caused such consternation that the IRT was convened to create RPMs and then the GAC strengthened them. I think is is naive to think that this group could conclude that we abandon Sunrise and that would be the end of the story. Such a recommendation would lead to a several-month (or longer) process that would, in the end, reinstate Sunrise. If I were convinced we had solid arguments, I might be tempted to take on that challenge. For the reasons stated above, I don’t think yours is a winning or winnable argument.
We should not be railroaded into supporting a failing policy for fear that our evidence-based determination will be overridden at a higher level for political reasons. EFF supports (and, indeed, formally proposed some months ago) that Sunrise be abolished.
-- 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: The six or so paragraphs that I wrote previous to the one you chose to “snip” explained that there has been no evidence-based determination that supports elimination of Sunrise. The evidence I have seen to date indicates the opposite to me. Merely citing low usage does, without more (e.g., a frame of reference, usage goals, some indication by brands) does not make a case for abolishing the practice. To restate the practicalities: When seeking to overturn a 17-year-old practice (or longer) that has been endorsed uniformly by governments and others, we should come with stronger arguments than what has been presented. Kurt
On Aug 9, 2017, at 4:07 PM, Jeremy Malcolm <jmalcolm@eff.org> wrote:
On 09.08.2017 05:50, Kurt Pritz wrote:
Practically speaking, remember that the original policy recommendation required no mandatory RPMs. That caused such consternation that the IRT was convened to create RPMs and then the GAC strengthened them. I think is is naive to think that this group could conclude that we abandon Sunrise and that would be the end of the story. Such a recommendation would lead to a several-month (or longer) process that would, in the end, reinstate Sunrise. If I were convinced we had solid arguments, I might be tempted to take on that challenge. For the reasons stated above, I don’t think yours is a winning or winnable argument.
We should not be railroaded into supporting a failing policy for fear that our evidence-based determination will be overridden at a higher level for political reasons. EFF supports (and, indeed, formally proposed some months ago) that Sunrise be abolished.
-- 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
participants (22)
-
Beckham, Brian -
claudio di gangi -
George Kirikos -
Greg Shatan -
J. Scott Evans -
Jeff Neuman -
Jeremy Malcolm -
Jon Nevett -
Jonathan Frost -
jonathan matkowsky -
Kiran Malancharuvil -
Kurt Pritz -
Martin Pablo Silva Valent -
Mary Wong -
Mike Rodenbaugh -
Nahitchevansky, Georges -
Paul Keating -
Phil Corwin -
Scott Austin -
Susan Payne -
trachtenbergm＠gtlaw.com -
Winterfeldt, Brian J.