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

Scott Austin SAustin at vlplawgroup.com
Wed Aug 9 23:09:50 UTC 2017

+1 move on.

Best regards,

Scott R. Austin | Board Certified Intellectual Property Attorney | VLP Law Group LLP
101 NE Third Avenue, Suite 1500, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Phone: (954) 204-3744 | Fax: (954) 320-0233 | SAustin at VLPLawGroup.com

-----Original Message-----
From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Nahitchevansky, Georges
Sent: Wednesday, August 9, 2017 7:03 PM
To: George Kirikos <icann at leap.com>; 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


Can we stop this back and forth on the same issue. A number of folks have told you they do not support a proposal to eliminate sunrise‎. So in mind I think we know what the positions are.  It is not helpful to keep re-hashing the same points. Can we just move on to discussing possible fixes  for the limited gaming issue as a separate topic.

  Original Message
From: George Kirikos
Sent: Wednesday, August 9, 2017 4:04 PM
To: gnso-rpm-wg
Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] FOR REVIEW & DISCUSSION: Draft collated proposal for Sunrise-related data collection


On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 3:54 PM, Jonathan Frost <jonathan at get.club> wrote:
> It's moot because the vast majority of registries will implement
> Sunrise even if not mandated.

For those now suggesting that the topic is "moot", then you should be in support of ICANN eliminating the requirement (i.e. at best you'd be indifferent), i.e. you should be supporting Jeremy's proposal, as it would simplify the ICANN new gTLD process/guidebook, etc., and would be one less policy for overworked volunteers to review every 5 or 10 or 20 years, etc. In other words, if the topic is "moot", why aren't you backing Jeremy's proposal to eliminate it? It's nonsensical to me to see an argument on the one hand that the topic is "moot" because registries will still implement it, but then support its continuation as a *mandated* ICANN policy requirement.

If we have consensus to support Jeremy's proposal now, I would certainly not oppose moving on to other topics.


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.
gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org

This message contains information which may be confidential and legally privileged. Unless you are the addressee, you may not use, copy or disclose to anyone this message or any information contained in the message. If you have received this message in error, please send me an email and delete this message. Any tax advice provided by VLP is for your use only and cannot be used to avoid tax penalties or for promotional or marketing purposes.

More information about the gnso-rpm-wg mailing list