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

Wed Aug 9 19:54:33 UTC 2017

+1 to Jon / J. Scott.

It's moot because the vast majority of registries will implement Sunrise
even if not mandated.  

Jonathan Frost
General Counsel
Telephone: (+1)877-707-5752
100 SE 3rd Avenue, #1310
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33394
E-Mail: jonathan at get.club 
Website: www.get.club 

Please be advised that this communication is confidential. The information
contained in this e-mail, and any attachments, may also be attorney-client
privileged and/or work product confidential.  If the reader of this message
is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review,
retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in
reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the
intended recipient is strictly prohibited.  If you have received this
communication in error, please immediately notify Jonathan Frost by
telephone at 877.707.5752 or by email at jonathan at get.club and delete the
original message. 

-----Original Message-----
From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org]
On Behalf Of Jon Nevett
Sent: Wednesday, August 9, 2017 3:38 PM
To: J. Scott Evans <jsevans at adobe.com>
Cc: 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 agree with J. Scott here.  Based on the evidence from the 2012 round, we
aren't going to get a consensus on eliminating the Sunrise requirement.
Moreover, even if we could, it wouldn't matter as most registries would opt
to do it anyway.  So the debate is really an academic one and the interest
in such an academic debate is waning with time and more emails flying back
and forth.

Let's move on.

Jon

> On Aug 9, 2017, at 3:18 PM, J. Scott Evans via gnso-rpm-wg
<gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org> wrote:
> 
> Dear All:
> 
> I personally believe that a continued discussion of the continuance of
Sunrise Registrations is fruitless. As I recall our call on August 2nd, I
believe we had solid consensus that the solution is to fix the loopholes in
the current system, not eliminate the current system altogether. I realize
that Jeremy and George have a viewpoint, but that viewpoint is not
reflective of our discussions. I suggest we move on to more productive
topics.
> 
> 
> J. Scott Evans
> 408.536.5336 (tel)
> 345 Park Avenue, Mail Stop W11-544
> Director, Trademarks
> 408.709.6162 (cell)
> San Jose, CA, 95110, USA
> Adobe. Make It an Experience.
> jsevans at adobe.com
> www.adobe.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 8/9/17, 12:00 PM, "gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org on behalf of Susan
Payne" <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org on behalf of susan.payne at valideus.com>
wrote:
> 
>    George
>    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.
> 
>    Susan Payne
>    Head of Legal Policy | Valideus Ltd
> 
>    E: susan.payne at valideus.com
>    T: +44 20 7421 8299
> 
> 
>    -----Original Message-----
>    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
> 
>    Hi Jeff,
> 
>    I respectfully disagree with your assessment as to it violating any
expected standards of behaviour. Indeed, according to that policy:
> 
>    
> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.i
> cann.org%2Fresources%2Fpages%2Fexpected-standards-2016-06-28-en&data=0
> 2%7C01%7C%7C2c8f996441fa4f002f9608d4df483af0%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c
> 178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636378948705498919&sdata=T2a5Fb0UlM82eDYnoIAVZQzph
> iQiNrOcL%2FBo0P6q%2BIY%3D&reserved=0
> 
>    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?
> 
>    
> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fvalid
> eus.com%2Fservices%2Fvalidation-services&data=02%7C01%7C%7C2c8f996441f
> a4f002f9608d4df483af0%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636
> 378948705498919&sdata=aEW9GVofBaNRWZfun1p1dTwlGbE5qd1qZAbUK6dSXyA%3D&r
> eserved=0
> 
>    "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?
> 
>    Sincerely,
> 
>    George Kirikos
>    416-588-0269
>    
> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.le
> ap.com%2F&data=02%7C01%7C%7C2c8f996441fa4f002f9608d4df483af0%7Cfa7b1b5
> a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636378948705498919&sdata=Obk9L6SKb
> M0MiNyEgZ8DRGdo0oYh%2FEVxH6zcz%2BaCh70%3D&reserved=0
> 
>    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://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fvali
>> deus.com%2Fservices%2Fvalidation-services&data=02%7C01%7C%7C2c8f99644
>> 1fa4f002f9608d4df483af0%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C
>> 636378948705498919&sdata=aEW9GVofBaNRWZfun1p1dTwlGbE5qd1qZAbUK6dSXyA%
>> 3D&reserved=0
>> 
>> 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
>> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.l
>> eap.com%2F&data=02%7C01%7C%7C2c8f996441fa4f002f9608d4df483af0%7Cfa7b1
>> b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636378948705498919&sdata=Obk9L6
>> SKbM0MiNyEgZ8DRGdo0oYh%2FEVxH6zcz%2BaCh70%3D&reserved=0
>> _______________________________________________
>> gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
>> gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
>> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.i
>> cann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-rpm-wg&data=02%7C01%7C%7C2c8f996
>> 441fa4f002f9608d4df483af0%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%
>> 7C636378948705498919&sdata=x8zW0U6EuzI6blzPyB0spG466g22tzozT7QDR2VdbM
>> I%3D&reserved=0
>    _______________________________________________
>    gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
>    gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
>
https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.or
g%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-rpm-wg&data=02%7C01%7C%7C2c8f996441fa4f002f960
8d4df483af0%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636378948705498919&
sdata=x8zW0U6EuzI6blzPyB0spG466g22tzozT7QDR2VdbMI%3D&reserved=0
>    _______________________________________________
>    gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
>    gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
>    
> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.ic
> ann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-rpm-wg&data=02%7C01%7C%7C2c8f99644
> 1fa4f002f9608d4df483af0%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C6
> 36378948705498919&sdata=x8zW0U6EuzI6blzPyB0spG466g22tzozT7QDR2VdbMI%3D
> &reserved=0
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
> gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg