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

George Kirikos icann at leap.com
Wed Aug 9 16:31:52 UTC 2017

Hi Jeff,

I respectfully disagree with your assessment as to it violating any
expected standards of behaviour. Indeed, according to that policy:


I was facilitating "transparency" by pointing out that those who want
to not look at any evidence happen to have an economic interest in the
maintenance of that policy. Which part was "inaccurate", since I cited
their own website with discussion of sunrise-related services?


"Whatever you want to achieve from your launch, we are here to help
you. We can design and implement a phased Sunrise for rights owners
not in the Trademark Clearinghouse, or a Limited Registration period
for local businesses or an eligibility check on accredited

"Underpinning our validation and verification services, we can work
with you on the policies of your launch period including:

Rules of eligibility including T&Cs for participation in a Sunrise or
Limited Registration period;"

As for "glass houses", and for Marc's later suggestion that I'm a
"speculator whose primary interest is in ensuring as many domain names
as possible are available to be speculated", I'm prepared to be judge.
The total number of new new gTLDs I've ever registered is exactly ZERO
(both personally, and through my companies), nor would I register any
of them in the future, landrush or GA.

I'm actually arguing *against* my own personal interests, improving
access to new gTLD registrants, which might improve their odds of
success! (and hurt .com) I'm prepared to live with that risk, against
my own self-interest as a .com registrant, because it's just the right
thing to do. I could sit back and watch new gTLDs continue with their
train wreck, but instead I'm "guilty" of actually trying to improve
the policies (against my own self-interest). I routinely am
"exercising independent judgment based solely on what is in the
overall best interest of Internet users and the stability and security
of the Internet's system of unique identifiers, irrespective of
personal interests and the interests of the entity to which an
individual might owe their appointment." Can everyone say the same,
when their positions just happen to coincide with their own personal
interests or those of their companies?

It's funny that folks would try to use the ICANN Expected Standards of
Behavior as a means to try to censor accurate dialog, when it indeed

"Listen to the views of all stakeholders when considering policy issues"

when folks like Susan are saying stuff like "Let's spend our time
fruitfully addressing the gaming, rather than endlessly recirculating
this argument." and others continually try to stifle different points
of view?


George Kirikos

On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 11:56 AM, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman at comlaude.com> wrote:
> George,
> Not only is your personal attack on Susan (and our company, Valideus) inaccurate and misleading, but it potentially violates the ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior.  Your assumptions about Valideus' business model is not at all true.
> Please stick to the issues at hand and refrain from attacks on anyone's motivations.  As someone much more virtuous than I has stated "Those that live in glass houses should not throw stones."
> Best regards,
> Jeffrey J. Neuman
> Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA
> 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600
> Mclean, VA 22102, United States
> E: jeff.neuman at valideus.com or jeff.neuman at comlaude.com
> T: +1.703.635.7514
> M: +1.202.549.5079
> @Jintlaw
> -----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 9, 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
> Hello,
> 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:
> https://valideus.com/services/validation-services
> 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...
> Sincerely,
> George Kirikos
> 416-588-0269
> http://www.leap.com/
> _______________________________________________
> gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
> gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg

More information about the gnso-rpm-wg mailing list