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

George Kirikos icann at leap.com
Fri Aug 11 04:21:55 UTC 2017


On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 11:21 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com> wrote:
> I don't see the math that created your "talking point" of a "99%+ reduction
> in sunrise."  Can you show your work please?

The post at:


showed numerous sunrise statistics, ranging from 15,000 on the low end
for .mobi (.co was slightly lower, although that's a ccTLD, not a TLD
that ICANN is involved with in any way), 32,000 for .asia, 80,000 for
.biz/.xxx, and who knows what it was for .info?

Even taking the lowest of those (15,000) as the base,  130 (average
new gTLD sunrise from The Analysis Group report) divided by 15,000 =
0.0087 = 0.87%, which is less than 1%, i.e. a 99%+ reduction. Of
course, if one chose a higher base (.asia, .xxx, .biz, .etc.), or an
average of those other sunrises, the reduction is even greater than if
one had used the lowest sunrise (from .mobi).

As for your other statement:

>We can't expect Sunrise registrations to outperform the New gTLD Program generally."

While the new gTLD program has been a disaster, it hasn't been an
underperformance of 99%+ of expectations (perhaps more like 80% to 90%
underperformance). Thus, while it's obvious that both have been
failures, sunrise usage is an even greater failure than new gTLDs
overall. So, even on that relative scale, the sunrise period should be

Since I know you'll ask "George, why do you say there's been an 80% or
90% underpeformance for new gTLDs?" let me answer that now to save
time. I'll use as my reference (besides the obvious general
observations of most informed observers) ICANN's own stats:


where the numbers came in at just 18% of ICANN's original 2014
expectations. For the math-challenged, 100% - 18% = 82% as the level
of underperformance.


George Kirikos

More information about the gnso-rpm-wg mailing list