[gnso-rpm-wg] FW: Updated TMCH Charter Questions tabulated categories document - 2 December 2016

George Kirikos icann at leap.com
Wed Dec 7 13:52:58 UTC 2016

Hi folks,

On Wed, Dec 7, 2016 at 8:03 AM, J. Scott Evans <jsevans at adobe.com> wrote:
> Having said that, I also recognize George¹s point that there may be
> multiple users of dictionary terms and other alphanumeric monikers used by
> different players in the marketplace. The RPMs are designed to prevent
> infringement and cybersquatting, not guarantee an absolute monopoly. If we
> find that numerous parties with legitimate rights are being left out of
> the system or finding it difficult to get protection or to use their
> moniker, we need to figure out a solution to that problem. However, I am
> not aware that this massive deficit in domains is harming Internet users.
> If harm can be demonstrated, not just hypothesized about based on a
> fundamental dislike of sunrise registrations.

The main justification for approving the new gTLDs program was an
expansion of choices for registrants, because "every good name was
taken", i.e. that there *was* a "massive deficit in domains that was
harming internet users." Some folks even now argue that a 2nd round,
or even ongoing rounds, of new gTLDs, should happen, for that same

Now, I was (and am) not convinced that that was true. However, ICANN
can't have it both ways, arguing some of the time that there's a huge
deficit in domains requiring new gTLDs, but then arguing at other
times that there's no massive deficit of domains, and thus sunrise
registrations are hunky-dory.

We actually *do* have evidence of what happened when there were no
sunrise periods, namely the experience from 1985-1999 in com/net/org,
i.e. the pre-UDRP period "Wild West" period (although the first-come,
first serve system still operates today). During that time, nearly
"every good domain name" was "already taken" according to some.  While
some cybersquatting did occur, on balance most registrations did not
involve cybersquatting. Indeed, if there was a huge amount of
cybersquatting prior to 1999, one would have expected that there would
be a massive number of UDRP cases won by complainants over the
"frequently used terms" (can we all agree to call these most desirable
and frequently used strings "The Usual Suspects", if some dislike the
term "generics"; we'll have to come up with some economical term for
them). If one checks the stats, that wasn't the case.

"The RPMs are designed to prevent infringement and cybersquatting, not
guarantee an absolute monopoly." On this we all agree. We just need to
find the most balanced solution, for all stakeholders, in light of all
the evidence.


George Kirikos

More information about the gnso-rpm-wg mailing list