[gnso-rpm-wg] FOR REVIEW & DISCUSSION: Draft collated proposal for Sunrise-related data collection
ghn at kilpatricktownsend.com
Wed Aug 9 12:02:48 UTC 2017
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 at icann.org
Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] FOR REVIEW & DISCUSSION: Draft collated proposal for Sunrise-related data collection
On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 11:47 AM, Beckham, Brian <brian.beckham at 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
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:
and with other replies at:
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.
gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
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.
More information about the gnso-rpm-wg