[gnso-rpm-wg] A Brave New World Without Sunrises or the TMCH
Greg Shatan
gregshatanipc at gmail.com
Thu Apr 13 21:38:24 UTC 2017
George,
I'd be happy not to "waste money" on defensive registrations. How do you
propose to replace the benefit that they give to those "defensive
registrants" (i.e., taking a domain out of circulation, where that
registrant is concerned about the potential abuse of that domain)?
Greg
*Greg Shatan *C: 917-816-6428
S: gsshatan
Phone-to-Skype: 646-845-9428
gregshatanipc at gmail.com
On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 5:29 PM, J. Scott Evans via gnso-rpm-wg <
gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org> wrote:
> I have been involved in ICANN since its inception in 1998. While I agree
> that a fair number of attorneys have made some money dealing with DNS
> issues, I feel quite certain that very little of that came from either
> registering a client’s mark in the TMCH or counseling a client on Sunrise
> Registrations. Registries and Registrars have made a good bit of money on
> Sunrise registrations and Premium names and I see very few people vilifying
> their business modes.
>
>
>
> J. Scott Evans
> 408.536.5336 (tel)
> 345 Park Avenue, Mail Stop W11-544
> Director, Associate General Counsel
> 408.709.6162 (cell)
> San Jose, CA, 95110, USA
> Adobe. Make It an Experience.
> jsevans at adobe.com
> www.adobe.com
>
>
>
>
> On 4/13/17, 2:10 PM, "gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org on behalf of George
> Kirikos" <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org on behalf of icann at leap.com>
> wrote:
>
> Hi folks,
>
> On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 4:35 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > Of course, that was an average of 130 sunrise registration per new
> gTLD, not
> > 130 overall. I think all of the numbers relating the new gTLD
> program have
> > been quite a bit lower than expected, so sunrise registrations is
> just part
> > of the larger trend. Maybe the only number that has bucked that
> trend is
> > percentage of cybersquatting and other forms of abuse in at least
> some of
> > the new gTLDs.
>
> No one claimed there were 130 overall. I implicitly multiplied by 1000
> TLDs, when coming up with the numbers. Although, I did make a rounding
> error. i.e. 65 x 0.02 = 1.3 [had mistakenly rounded that to "1"];
> multiplying by 1000 and dividing by 4 = 325 extra UDRPs per year,
> rather than 250. And that's $1.625 million/yr, rather than $1.250
> million/yr.
>
> Still, it's much less than what's being spent on TMCH-related costs,
> especially when considering costs borne by registry operators,
> registrars, and registrants.
>
>
>
> > I also have to say that this statement is both false and insulting:
> >
> > I think many people are overly protective of the TMCH & sunrise
> period
> > not because it's "working", but because it's an opportunity for extra
> > consulting, revenue streams, etc. e.g. lawyers can tell their clients
> > "get registered", and they can make money from the filing fees, etc.
> > There's a huge amount of money being wasted, in my voice, that can be
> > redirected to other things (like curative rights, better education,
> > etc.).
> >
> > The stereotype of the greedy, money-grubbing lawyer who wants to
> suck up all
> > their client's money rather than represent their client's best
> interests is
> > as old as it is untrue (acknowledging that all profession/businesses
> have
> > their bad actors, whether it's lawyers or domain investors).
> Further, for
> > anyone who has been following the discussion, it would be easy to
> notice
> > that (a) a lot of this work is handled "in-house" so greed is even
> more
> > ridiculous as a motivation and (b) most if not all of us are very
> concerned
> > with being cost-effective and prudent (or else there would be many
> more TMCH
> > registrations and less concerns about the strategic decisions around
> what to
> > put in the TMCH).
>
> Disagree, there's a lot of "scare mongering" to convince people to buy
> things they ultimately don't need or benefit from. It's being sold as
> a form of overpriced and ineffective insurance.
>
> Consider how many people were convinced to register .XXX domain names,
> needlessly. It wasn't just registries/registrars doing the scare
> mongering.
>
> The amounts wasted on defensive registrations, and TMCH (sold as an
> alternative to defensive registrations) could better be directed
> elsewhere.
>
> Consider how Verizon sued iREIT, with excellent outcomes for them.
> Much better result, and much greater deterrent effect than filing a
> UDRP or giving a "TMCH claims notice".
>
> There's a scene in the 1989 Batman:
>
> [Batman dangles a mugger over the side of a building]
> Nic: Don't kill me! Don't kill me, man! Don't kill me! Don't kill me,
> man!
> Batman: I'm not going to kill you. I want you to do me a favor. I want
> you to tell all your friends about me.
> Nic: What are you?
> Batman: I'm Batman.
>
> That's what Verizon did when they sued. I'm sure the "organized
> industrial cybersquatters" heard that message loud and clear, and
> cleaned their portfolios. Microsoft has done the same.
>
> > Finally, the statement about "some who feel, wrongly, that they have
> > exclusive rights to common dictionary terms, etc., which is
> > not something the law supports," is just incorrect as a statement
> about the
> > law, no matter how many times it is said. Trademark law does not
> > distinguish between whether a mark is an invented (a/k/a "fanciful"
> or
> > "coined") term or a so-called "dictionary term" -- both can be
> equally valid
> > and equally strong as a trademark. (I won't rehash the discussion
> of "apple
> > for apples" is generic and not protectable, but "apple for
> computers" is
> > arbitrary and protectable, and that in between there are descriptive
> uses
> > (which can be protectable) and suggestive uses (which are
> protectable),
> > etc.)
>
> You obviously misread what I wrote --- note the word "exclusive"
> before "rights". Apple (of iPhone fame) has the most famous trademark
> in the world, arguably, but even they don't have exclusivity over the
> word 'apple' (NB: I'm a small shareholder in Apple, for disclosure).
> It's a valid trademark, but others can certainly use it without
> violating Apple's rights. Never claimed it was not protectable.
>
> I think if one crunches the numbers, elimination of the TMCH and
> sunrise would make obvious sense for registrars, registries, and
> registrants. For most TM holders, it would make sense, given I've
> shown how post-registration curative rights would be made better for
> them for any domains registered in landrush (higher standard to
> register, with financial penalties). [i.e. the horse trading Phil
> suggested] The math would probably work even without the horse
> trading.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> George Kirikos
> 416-588-0269
> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
> http%3A%2F%2Fwww.leap.com%2F&data=02%7C01%7C%
> 7C59a2b91cb0e0421977d408d482b1877b%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178de
> cee1%7C0%7C0%7C636277146371486663&sdata=OpIpVtTXbHABOuid5hj9uAwwrZcEuz
> PIjJg%2B5sb%2Btas%3D&reserved=0
> _______________________________________________
> gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
> gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
> https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-
> rpm-wg&data=02%7C01%7C%7C59a2b91cb0e0421977d408d482b1877b%
> 7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636277146371486663&sdata=
> DnWEKBHs2KcoNlTV%2BuBxnrcOgvFvbxxV28I1m1Lbp1s%3D&reserved=0
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
> gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/attachments/20170413/399e0898/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the gnso-rpm-wg
mailing list