[gnso-rpm-wg] FOR REVIEW & DISCUSSION: Draft collated proposal for Sunrise-related data collection
susan.payne at valideus.com
Wed Aug 9 17:00:42 UTC 2017
I've never been anything other than transparent about where I work - it's in my SOI, my company is always identified in my signature, and I regularly refer to my experiences in my current and previous employment, and the experiences of my clients, during calls on this working group. I'd be astonished if anyone who was interested needed you to facilitate transparency for them.
As you yourself have demonstrated from the quote below, our validations work is particularly with registry operators who want to voluntarily go further than the mandated minimum by controlling the eligibility of registrants in their TLD. Having no mandated sunrise wouldn't really impact on that - indeed since many registries want to be good actors we'd probably have greater scope and flexibility. Our validations work predates the new gTLD program.
To save you wasting your time crawling through our websites, Valideus sister company is a corporate registrar, Com Laude, and since we acquire sunrise registrations for our clients, you could also say we earn revenue from sunrises by that means too. But then that would be true of landrush and GA too. However, if you knew anything about our business you would know that we don't push our clients to register in all TLD's, we counsel brand owners to take a measured and strategic approach, and we have been outspoken in recommending that our clients bypass some sunrises and registries altogether. As others have pointed out, we've all got a vested interest in some way or another, otherwise we wouldn't be spending so many enjoyable hours together on calls and email.
I was not trying to stifle different points of view - merely pointing out that they have been made ad nauseum, repetition does not change their validity, and that in my opinion and that of many others on this working group, our time could be usefully spent trying to make practical progress on addressing the bad actors rather than penalizing the good.
Feel free to reply as you wish (I wouldn't want to stifle you) but I won't be bothering to read or respond so don't draw any inferences from silence.
Head of Legal Policy | Valideus Ltd
E: susan.payne at valideus.com
T: +44 20 7421 8299
From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of George Kirikos
Sent: 09 August 2017 17:32
To: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] FOR REVIEW & DISCUSSION: Draft collated proposal for Sunrise-related data collection
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 professionals."
"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 says
"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?
On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 11:56 AM, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman at comlaude.com> wrote:
> 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
> -----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
> 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
gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
More information about the gnso-rpm-wg