[gnso-rpm-wg] 99%+ reduction in sunrise utilization rate per TLD supports EFF call for elimination of sunrise

claudio di gangi ipcdigangi at gmail.com
Thu Aug 10 18:31:29 UTC 2017


It appears you have concluded that the "success" of Sunrise is measured on
the number of registrations on a per TLD basis, irrespective of the total
number of Sunrise-eligible TLDs or the cost per Sunrise registration.

At the same time, you cite to the 1 cent give-away domains in new gTLDs as
evidence that cost does matter (along with usage, and other factors).

I admit, I'm not clear on why you think cost matters in one context, but
not the other.

Hopefully, I've established that there are other ways of analyzing this
topic that are not unreasonable. I suggest we continue the discussion on
the Sunrise subteam, where these issues are being examined in closer detail.

Thank you for your input and feedback.


On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 1:44 PM George Kirikos <icann at leap.com> wrote:

> Claudio:
> Costs of a sunrise also scale as you increase the number of gTLDs. Are
> new gTLD registries paying on a per domain name (variable cost per
> domain name) only? Or are there fixed costs too? Are sunrise periods
> (which delay launch of GA) shorter, if there are more TLDs? Or are
> they fixed in length? Are there equal amounts of "good" domain names
> in those new gTLDs, or are the gamed sunrise domains representing a
> higher proportion of the "good" ones, as one scales?
> If 1,000,000 new gTLDs are launched, clearly any sunrise period is
> *pointless*, as TM holders are going to focus nearly entirely on
> *curative rights.* That was my point --- they're *already* doing that,
> shifting to curative rights, by decreasing their usage of sunrise
> periods. Thus, the costs of eliminating sunrise period are lower,
> because of that reduced usage (or, in other words, the benefits of
> retaining that sunrise period are low).
> That's why it's time to sunset/eliminate the sunrise period mandate --
> it outlived its usefulness as a tool, as the numbers show. It's only
> there to "shear the sheep", so to speak (i.e. soak TM holders who are
> highly risk averse, and don't know any better; i.e. bad insurance,
> like the folks who buy those electronics "Extended Warranties").
> As for those 1,000,000 new gTLDs, realize that if sunrise was
> eliminated, there'd also be 1,000,000 landrushes --- any brandholder
> that had coveted a name could still get it, on an equal playing field
> with everyone else, instead of jumping ahead of the line.
> Sincerely,
> George Kirikos
> 416-588-0269
> http://www.leap.com/
> On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 1:24 PM, claudio di gangi <ipcdigangi at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > George,
> >
> > I'm going to use an extreme example to illustrate my point.
> >
> > If 1,000,000 new gTLDs are launched in the next round, how many Sunrise
> > registrations do think there should be order to reach the "success"
> > threshold?
> >
> > Best,
> > Claudio
> >
> > On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 12:50 PM George Kirikos <icann at leap.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi again,
> >>
> >> On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 12:44 PM, George Kirikos <icann at leap.com>
> wrote:
> >> >with stats propped up with high counts of sub-$1
> >> > registrations, or even domains that are stuffed into the accounts of
> >> > registrants of other TLDs (e.g. .xxx with NSI, or .kiwi).
> >>
> >> Sorry, that was a typo. It should have been .XYZ with NSI, of course,
> >> not .XXX, e.g.
> >>
> >> http://www.dnjournal.com/archive/lowdown/2014/dailyposts/20140605.htm
> >>
> >> 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/attachments/20170810/b28c1f6d/attachment.html>

More information about the gnso-rpm-wg mailing list