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

Fri Aug 11 16:47:10 UTC 2017

Hi George,

Thoughts:

*	It makes sense the vast majority of nTLDs have low/no sunrise
registrations as they're uptake has been low.

*	64% of nTLDs have less than 1,000 registered domains
*	85% have fewer than 10K registrations

*	All nTLDs are not created equal. It's no surprise nTLDs that are
expensive, have limited applicability, and/or are similar to other
extensions see fewer Sunrise registrations.
*	Sunrise registrations are affected by many factors in consideration
by registrants at any given moment (the economy, cash-on-hand, marketing
plans, life of the brand, etc.).

In other words, just because we don't see Sunrise registrations booming
across all nTLDs doesn't mean it isn't a valuable tool where it is
applicable.  It's rather like a product warranty: you may decide to cover
everything, only what you can easily afford, or to skip it altogether.  The
fact that many people opt out of the warranty doesn't invalidate the
concept.

Sunrise is relatively simple and provides a reasonably effective initial bar
to bad behavior.

Rather than eliminating a feature that is often useful as a first measure of
protection & not overly-burdensome, we should tweak Sunrise & move on.

O:  +1 81-ModernIP

C:  +1 818.209.6088

-----Original Message-----
From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org]
On Behalf Of George Kirikos
Sent: Thursday, August 10, 2017 12:44 PM
To: claudio di gangi <ipcdigangi at gmail.com>
Cc: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] 99%+ reduction in sunrise utilization rate per
TLD supports EFF call for elimination of sunrise

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/> http://www.leap.com/

On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 1:24 PM, claudio di gangi <
<mailto:ipcdigangi at gmail.com> 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 < <mailto:icann at leap.com>
icann at leap.com> wrote:

>> 

>> Hi again,

>> 

>> On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 12:44 PM, George Kirikos <
<mailto:icann at leap.com> 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>
http://www.dnjournal.com/archive/lowdown/2014/dailyposts/20140605.htm

>> 

>> Sincerely,

>> 

>> George Kirikos

>> 416-588-0269

>>  <http://www.leap.com/> http://www.leap.com/

>> _______________________________________________

>> gnso-rpm-wg mailing list

>>  <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org> gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org

>>  <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg

_______________________________________________

gnso-rpm-wg mailing list

 <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org> gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org

 <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg>
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/20170811/20409231/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 5425 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/attachments/20170811/20409231/image001-0001.png>