[gnso-rpm-wg] FOR REVIEW & DISCUSSION: Draft collated proposal for Sunrise-related data collection
Kiran.Malancharuvil at markmonitor.com
Wed Aug 9 16:04:52 UTC 2017
+1 on all points.
Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.
> On Aug 9, 2017, at 8:58 AM, "trachtenbergm at gtlaw.com" <trachtenbergm at gtlaw.com> wrote:
> 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
> 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 at leap.com> wrote:
>>> 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...
>> George Kirikos
>> gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
>> gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
> If you are not an intended recipient of confidential and privileged information in this email, please delete it, notify us immediately at postmaster at gtlaw.com, and do not use or disseminate such information.
> gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
> gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
More information about the gnso-rpm-wg