<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">George,</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">I'd be happy not to "waste money" on defensive registrations. How do you propose to replace the benefit that they give to those "defensive registrants" (i.e., taking a domain out of circulation, where that registrant is concerned about the potential abuse of that domain)?</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Greg</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br clear="all"><div><div class="gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><p style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"></p><div><p style="text-indent:0in"><span style="font-size:12.8px"><a name="UNIQUE_ID_SafeHtmlFilter_UNIQUE_ID_SafeHtmlFilter__GoBack"></a></span><b style="font-size:12.8px"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#002e62">Greg
Shatan<br>
</span></b><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:black">C: 917-816-6428<br>
S: gsshatan<br>Phone-to-Skype: </span><font color="#000000" face="Arial, sans-serif"><span style="font-size:13.3333px">646-845-9428<br></span></font><a href="mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif;font-size:10pt;text-indent:0in" target="_blank"><span style="color:#1155cc">gregshatanipc@gmail.com</span></a></p><p style="font-size:12.8px;text-indent:0in"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif""></span></p></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div>
<br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 5:29 PM, J. Scott Evans via gnso-rpm-wg <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org" target="_blank">gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">I have been involved in ICANN since its inception in 1998. While I agree that a fair number of attorneys have made some money dealing with DNS issues, I feel quite certain that very little of that came from either registering a client’s mark in the TMCH or counseling a client on Sunrise Registrations. Registries and Registrars have made a good bit of money on Sunrise registrations and Premium names and I see very few people vilifying their business modes.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
J. Scott Evans<br>
<a href="tel:408.536.5336" value="+14085365336">408.536.5336</a> (tel)<br>
345 Park Avenue, Mail Stop W11-544<br>
Director, Associate General Counsel<br>
<a href="tel:408.709.6162" value="+14087096162">408.709.6162</a> (cell)<br>
San Jose, CA, 95110, USA<br>
Adobe. Make It an Experience.<br>
<a href="mailto:jsevans@adobe.com">jsevans@adobe.com</a><br>
<a href="http://www.adobe.com" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">www.adobe.com</a><br>
<div><div class="h5"><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
On 4/13/17, 2:10 PM, "<a href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org">gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org</a> on behalf of George Kirikos" <<a href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org">gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org</a> on behalf of <a href="mailto:icann@leap.com">icann@leap.com</a>> wrote:<br>
<br>
Hi folks,<br>
<br>
On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 4:35 PM, Greg Shatan <<a href="mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com">gregshatanipc@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> Of course, that was an average of 130 sunrise registration per new gTLD, not<br>
> 130 overall. I think all of the numbers relating the new gTLD program have<br>
> been quite a bit lower than expected, so sunrise registrations is just part<br>
> of the larger trend. Maybe the only number that has bucked that trend is<br>
> percentage of cybersquatting and other forms of abuse in at least some of<br>
> the new gTLDs.<br>
<br>
No one claimed there were 130 overall. I implicitly multiplied by 1000<br>
TLDs, when coming up with the numbers. Although, I did make a rounding<br>
error. i.e. 65 x 0.02 = 1.3 [had mistakenly rounded that to "1"];<br>
multiplying by 1000 and dividing by 4 = 325 extra UDRPs per year,<br>
rather than 250. And that's $1.625 million/yr, rather than $1.250<br>
million/yr.<br>
<br>
Still, it's much less than what's being spent on TMCH-related costs,<br>
especially when considering costs borne by registry operators,<br>
registrars, and registrants.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
> I also have to say that this statement is both false and insulting:<br>
><br>
> I think many people are overly protective of the TMCH & sunrise period<br>
> not because it's "working", but because it's an opportunity for extra<br>
> consulting, revenue streams, etc. e.g. lawyers can tell their clients<br>
> "get registered", and they can make money from the filing fees, etc.<br>
> There's a huge amount of money being wasted, in my voice, that can be<br>
> redirected to other things (like curative rights, better education,<br>
> etc.).<br>
><br>
> The stereotype of the greedy, money-grubbing lawyer who wants to suck up all<br>
> their client's money rather than represent their client's best interests is<br>
> as old as it is untrue (acknowledging that all profession/businesses have<br>
> their bad actors, whether it's lawyers or domain investors). Further, for<br>
> anyone who has been following the discussion, it would be easy to notice<br>
> that (a) a lot of this work is handled "in-house" so greed is even more<br>
> ridiculous as a motivation and (b) most if not all of us are very concerned<br>
> with being cost-effective and prudent (or else there would be many more TMCH<br>
> registrations and less concerns about the strategic decisions around what to<br>
> put in the TMCH).<br>
<br>
Disagree, there's a lot of "scare mongering" to convince people to buy<br>
things they ultimately don't need or benefit from. It's being sold as<br>
a form of overpriced and ineffective insurance.<br>
<br>
Consider how many people were convinced to register .XXX domain names,<br>
needlessly. It wasn't just registries/registrars doing the scare<br>
mongering.<br>
<br>
The amounts wasted on defensive registrations, and TMCH (sold as an<br>
alternative to defensive registrations) could better be directed<br>
elsewhere.<br>
<br>
Consider how Verizon sued iREIT, with excellent outcomes for them.<br>
Much better result, and much greater deterrent effect than filing a<br>
UDRP or giving a "TMCH claims notice".<br>
<br>
There's a scene in the 1989 Batman:<br>
<br>
[Batman dangles a mugger over the side of a building]<br>
Nic: Don't kill me! Don't kill me, man! Don't kill me! Don't kill me, man!<br>
Batman: I'm not going to kill you. I want you to do me a favor. I want<br>
you to tell all your friends about me.<br>
Nic: What are you?<br>
Batman: I'm Batman.<br>
<br>
That's what Verizon did when they sued. I'm sure the "organized<br>
industrial cybersquatters" heard that message loud and clear, and<br>
cleaned their portfolios. Microsoft has done the same.<br>
<br>
> Finally, the statement about "some who feel, wrongly, that they have<br>
> exclusive rights to common dictionary terms, etc., which is<br>
> not something the law supports," is just incorrect as a statement about the<br>
> law, no matter how many times it is said. Trademark law does not<br>
> distinguish between whether a mark is an invented (a/k/a "fanciful" or<br>
> "coined") term or a so-called "dictionary term" -- both can be equally valid<br>
> and equally strong as a trademark. (I won't rehash the discussion of "apple<br>
> for apples" is generic and not protectable, but "apple for computers" is<br>
> arbitrary and protectable, and that in between there are descriptive uses<br>
> (which can be protectable) and suggestive uses (which are protectable),<br>
> etc.)<br>
<br>
You obviously misread what I wrote --- note the word "exclusive"<br>
before "rights". Apple (of iPhone fame) has the most famous trademark<br>
in the world, arguably, but even they don't have exclusivity over the<br>
word 'apple' (NB: I'm a small shareholder in Apple, for disclosure).<br>
It's a valid trademark, but others can certainly use it without<br>
violating Apple's rights. Never claimed it was not protectable.<br>
<br>
I think if one crunches the numbers, elimination of the TMCH and<br>
sunrise would make obvious sense for registrars, registries, and<br>
registrants. For most TM holders, it would make sense, given I've<br>
shown how post-registration curative rights would be made better for<br>
them for any domains registered in landrush (higher standard to<br>
register, with financial penalties). [i.e. the horse trading Phil<br>
suggested] The math would probably work even without the horse<br>
trading.<br>
<br>
Sincerely,<br>
<br>
George Kirikos<br>
416-588-0269<br>
</div></div> <a href="https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.leap.com%2F&data=02%7C01%7C%7C59a2b91cb0e0421977d408d482b1877b%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636277146371486663&sdata=OpIpVtTXbHABOuid5hj9uAwwrZcEuzPIjJg%2B5sb%2Btas%3D&reserved=0" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://na01.safelinks.<wbr>protection.outlook.com/?url=<wbr>http%3A%2F%2Fwww.leap.com%2F&<wbr>data=02%7C01%7C%<wbr>7C59a2b91cb0e0421977d408d482b1<wbr>877b%<wbr>7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178de<wbr>cee1%7C0%7C0%<wbr>7C636277146371486663&sdata=<wbr>OpIpVtTXbHABOuid5hj9uAwwrZcEuz<wbr>PIjJg%2B5sb%2Btas%3D&reserved=<wbr>0</a><br>
<span class=""> ______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
gnso-rpm-wg mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org">gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org</a><br>
</span> <a href="https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-rpm-wg&data=02%7C01%7C%7C59a2b91cb0e0421977d408d482b1877b%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636277146371486663&sdata=DnWEKBHs2KcoNlTV%2BuBxnrcOgvFvbxxV28I1m1Lbp1s%3D&reserved=0" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://na01.safelinks.<wbr>protection.outlook.com/?url=<wbr>https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%<wbr>2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-<wbr>rpm-wg&data=02%7C01%7C%<wbr>7C59a2b91cb0e0421977d408d482b1<wbr>877b%<wbr>7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178de<wbr>cee1%7C0%7C0%<wbr>7C636277146371486663&sdata=<wbr>DnWEKBHs2KcoNlTV%<wbr>2BuBxnrcOgvFvbxxV28I1m1Lbp1s%<wbr>3D&reserved=0</a><br>
<div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><br>
<br>
______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
gnso-rpm-wg mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org">gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/<wbr>listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg</a></div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>