[gnso-rpm-wg] FOR REVIEW & DISCUSSION: Draft collated proposal for Sunrise-related data collection
icann at leap.com
Wed Aug 9 15:28:48 UTC 2017
On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 11:16 AM, Susan Payne <susan.payne at 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
I can see why every sunrise is a "success" if part of your business is
built upon consulting revenue for sunrises:
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...
More information about the gnso-rpm-wg