[gnso-rpm-wg] Inferences (was Re: Mp3, Attendance, AC recording & AC Chat Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) PDP Working Group)

[Nahitchevansky, Georges]

George K:

You need to read my emails more carefully, as you misstate what I have said in the past.  Look I get it that you want to get rid of sunrise and claims.  Your justifications, however, do not hold up.  Cybersquatting is a problem and it costs brand owners, law enforcement, consumers etc. a bunch of money every year.  This is not about being alarmist, but stating a fact that there are real costs involved.  I know you want to pretend they do not exist.  That's your choice, but I do not agree. When you have folks that basically want to sweep that reality under the rug, you have to point out those costs and the ultimate benefits of having sunrise and claims RPMs.

-----Original Message-----
From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of George Kirikos
Sent: Monday, July 17, 2017 10:18 AM
To: gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Inferences (was Re: Mp3, Attendance, AC recording & AC Chat Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) PDP Working Group)

Hi folks,

On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 9:19 AM, Nahitchevansky, Georges <ghn at kilpatricktownsend.com> wrote:
> If you assume 100 bona fide sunrise registrations per extension
> (registrations that correlate to trademarks that are actually in use),
> and of those 50 get squatted on because there is no TMCH, then
> assuming the cost on investigating, preparing and filing a UDRP
> complaint to be $4000, the cost would be $200,000 per extension.  If
> you assume the conservative number of 500 new gTLD extensions
> involved, the cost would be $100 million.  Ultimately that cost likely
> filters down to consumers, so it seems that having a sunrise period in
> the end is a cost saver and a far more efficient way of proceeding
>

Of course, those alarmist assumptions (50% cybersquatting rate) don't match the actual cybersquatting experience in the post-sunrise landrush periods, which is not surprising given that they're coming from someone who repeatedly denied that there was any abuse of the TMCH to begin with.

When I proposed elimination of the sunrise period back in April, which started a long thread:

http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2017-April/001509.html

I used a more realistic estimate of 2% (which is still above the rate actually experienced). Compared with the estimated cost savings of $10 million/yr from elimination of the TMCH, TM holders would be saving money on an overall basis.

Note that I even suggested that since those sunrise registrations would shift into the beginning part of landrush, as a "horse trade"
that there could be additional protections imposed by raising the bar slightly for those early landrush registrants, e.g. "loser pays" for any UDRPs.

Of course, it still perplexes me as to why there is not greater utilization of the ACPA $100K damages route, to actually send a stronger message, like Verizon and others have done. There was a thread on one domain forum about how Facebook won a UDRP against a company in 2011:

https://www.namepros.com/threads/domainmarket-com-mike-manns-domains.1030091/
 (post #18 in that thread)
http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/text.jsp?case=D2011-0516

Yet that company still apparently owns Facebook-related domains, e.g.

https://whois.domaintools.com/facebookservices.com

(more listed in that thread)

Why wouldn't Facebook try to obtain $100,000 x the number of domains being allegedly cybersquatted (and potentially triple damages, in some scenarios, plus legal costs), rather than *pay* $1,500+ for a UDRP? It doesn't make sense to me at all.

As long as those who cybersquat can do so with little actual downside, you're not going to see a reduction by the repeat offenders.

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

________________________________

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.