[gnso-rpm-wg] FOR REVIEW & DISCUSSION: Draft collated proposal for Sunrise-related data collection

Nahitchevansky, Georges ghn at kilpatricktownsend.com
Wed Aug 9 16:18:51 UTC 2017


The proportion of gaming is quite small.  The harm you claim to legitimate registrants is unfounded and yet you persist with trying to scrap a system and replace with a landrush only system which we know from experience is far from optimal, has led to much abuse and heavy costs on brand owners, etc.  Your loser pays proposal is unworkable and the proposal to scrap sunrise by your colleagues sounds like those who want to scrap the very limited healthcare system in the US but have no workable plan to put in place to prevent abuse and address the serious cost issues that can readily be proven.  Sunrise has proven to be beneficial, and a simple cost benefit analysis shows its usefulness both to limit abuse, reduce enforcement costs, prevent fraud on consumers etc.  Basically you want to create new structures that will lead to new problems and which will likely ultimately burden one community fairly strongly -- and all of this in the name of some particular claimed harm that has not been proven to exist in the first place and now on some self-serving claim of "failed policy" with no real proof.  Rather than going back and forth on the issue of the existence of sunrise, why not focus on improving the RPM to address the small amount of gaming that has occurred from speculators?

Lastly, I agree with Jeff that comments attacking the integrity of RPM members is unwarranted as such types of attacks could be made against any number of folks who might seen as having particular agendas.  Let's keep this civil and work through the problems.

-----Original Message-----
From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of George Kirikos
Sent: Wednesday, August 09, 2017 11:29 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 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 change.

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


Confidentiality Notice:
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 mailing list