<div><div dir="auto">I think Kurt raises many good points.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Just in terms of background on the GAC issue, in my view the context and political environment in which the IRT (and later the STI) recommendations were created can not be discounted. Often context is dispositive to outcome. </div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">In the other words, the IRT recommended the minimum set of protections, in order for those recommendations to be adopted into the Guidebook (which is why the need for the IRT existed to begin with).</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">In hindsight, what occurred was those recommendations were changed (or in some cases, simply discarded), over the IRT's concerns. In fact, the IRT-based RPMs were made purely optional for registries in the subsequent version of the Applicant Guidebook that was published. In part, that contributed to the multi-year delay, and prompted the GAC to step-in. It's much harder for ICANN to reject GAC advice vs IPC advice (or any another GNSO group for that matter).</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">One additional point: the overall number of defensive registrations can not be divorced from the level of demand for new gTLDs. In fact, there is probably some direct corollary between the overall level of demand and defensive registrations (setting aside the issue of market power, and whether some registries have market power over registrants, in effect imposing costs/registrations where they wouldn't otherwise exist). </div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">A lack of demand doesn't imply there shouldn't be any new gTLDs in the marketplace (or libraries for that matter- the image of books turning into dust in Orwell's Time Machine), but it does suggest these variables need to be considered together in a holistic manner.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Best,</div><div dir="auto">Claudio</div></div><div><div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div>On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 8:51 AM Kurt Pritz <<a href="mailto:kurt@kjpritz.com" target="_blank">kurt@kjpritz.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word">George: <div><br></div><div>I disagree.</div><div><br></div><div>First, usage rates that define adequate usage were never set so wen we say “low uptake,” I would ask low uptake compared to what? </div><div><br></div><div>More importantly, an arbitrary metric for satisfactory usage rate does not adequately equal to “actual value." The are other types of value that Sunrise provides other than uptake or usage rates. </div><div><br></div><div>The first is the quality of registrations. Even at the current rates it is clear that some important brands have registered in domains important to them. This selectivity indicates that these registrations are highly valuable to them and, in turn to the reputation of the new gTLD program. I.e., not all Sunrise registrations have equal value and the ones that have been made are likely to have had significant value. When I say significant, I mean that the brand believed it was avoiding significant risk to the brand bypassing registering the name in those certain instances. </div><div><br></div><div>If you are putting together a case that the Sunrise has insignificant value, you must consider the quantity and the quality of the registrations. </div><div><br></div><div>Second, before equating low uptake to low value, you should understand why uptake is low. What is the awareness about Sunrise, RPMs in general, and even the whole new gTLD program among brands globally? What are the public & IP information campaigns concerning new gTLDs and RPMs? Maybe that is the problem we need to fix.</div><div><br></div><div>To take your library analogy, if that library is in my neighborhood, I want to know why participation is low because I regard public libraries as a public asset. Are they making the right products available: (e.g., online access, videos and video games) to attract youth? I’d investigate reasons before just chucking the library. If you run for village council George, don’t tell the people about your position on libraries. </div><div><br></div><div>Third, after-the-fact remedies are <i>always</i> significantly more expensive than before-the-fact. Even with loser-pays UDRP, invoking the UDRP or URS remedy takes several lawyer and management hours. Preventative costs are always 10-100x less that curative costs. </div><div><br></div><div>Fourth, the existence of Sunrise provides value beyond that than can be calculated by usage rates. Governments, through the GAC, have attached great value to it.The importance of maintaining ICANN’s and the new gTLD program’s deference to valid trademark rights cannot be overestimated. I have personal experience indicating the US Dept. of Justice is very interested in RPMs. Abandonment of rights protection is an issue where governments might seek to shutter the program or leave the GAC. When the IRT recommended Sunrise as a voluntary RPM (only one of Claims and Sunrise was required), the GAC made Sunrise mandatory. To me the existence of Sunrise s cheap insurance. This is especially the case where relatively low uptake rate indicates low cost to and interference with registrants, </div><div><br></div><div>Finally, notwithstanding your argument that low usage equates to low value, it seems to me that these are the results are those for which we had hoped. The existence of Sunrise demonstrates to the world (i.e., governments) that the new gTLD program is paying attention to rights protection. The fact that the uptake is relatively low leads one to two important conclusions. One, registrants are generally not barred from registering names of their choice. Two, brands are not overly panicked by the existence of new gTLDs and we can discredit arguments to the contrary. Sunrise, then, is only invoked in limited situations that brands acting individually have regarded as important. </div><div><br></div><div><div>Practically speaking, remember that the original policy recommendation required no mandatory RPMs. That caused such consternation that the IRT was convened to create RPMs and then the GAC strengthened them. I think is is naive to think that this group could conclude that we abandon Sunrise and that would be the end of the story. Such a recommendation would lead to a several-month (or longer) process that would, in the end, reinstate Sunrise. If I were convinced we had solid arguments, I might be tempted to take on that challenge. For the reasons stated above, I don’t think yours is a winning or winnable argument. </div></div><div><br></div><div>Best regards to all and think you for taking the time to read through this,</div><div><br></div><div>Kurt</div></div><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br><div><blockquote type="cite"><div>On Aug 9, 2017, at 12:11 PM, George Kirikos <<a href="mailto:icann@leap.com" target="_blank">icann@leap.com</a>> wrote:</div><br class="m_262031044351328086m_-4468447684384522401Apple-interchange-newline"><div><div>Hi folks,<br><br>On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 11:47 AM, Beckham, Brian <<a href="mailto:brian.beckham@wipo.int" target="_blank">brian.beckham@wipo.int</a>> wrote:<br><blockquote type="cite">Finally, the suggestion that Sunrises may not be meeting their intended<br>purpose due to low uptake statistically-speaking (also as to documented<br>abuses) seems to widely miss the mark. As J Scott and others pointed out on<br>the call, the intended purpose is to provide an opportunity to get ahead of<br>infringing registrations. Whether that opportunity is taken up by a brand<br>owner is an altogether separate question.<br></blockquote><br>This analysis is deeply flawed. It attempts to justify the continued<br>existence of the sunrise by measuring "theoretical benefits", despite<br>the low uptake rate, as opposed to "actual realized benefits" (as<br>measured by the actual low update, data that is actually observable),<br>when comparing against the costs of the sunrise period (to competing<br>good faith registrants, etc.).<br><br>For example, consider a public library branch that is in a large<br>neighbourhood of 100,000 people, but is only used by 100 people per<br>year. Using Brian's flawed analysis, the branch should be kept open,<br>because "theoretically", 100,000 people have the opportunity to use it<br>(even though 99,900 don't actually use it). Instead, it should be<br>closed because only 100 people actually use it. The actual benefits<br>(the usage by a mere 100 users) are what matter, when compared against<br>the costs.<br><br>I agree with the analysis of Paul Keating in this thread, who properly<br>weighed the actual benefits (low), vs the costs, and came out in<br>favour of elimination of the sunrise period.<br><br>As I discussed in a previous thread on this topic, sunrise demand<br>would shift to the landrush period when the sunrise period is<br>eliminated. Appropriate safeguards could be instituted to reduce<br>cybersquatting in that landrush (e.g. loser pays UDRP costs for<br>landrush registrations, thereby raising the bar for those<br>registrations, compared to general availability, or other mechanisms<br>suggested). See the (long) thread in April 2017, starting with:<br><br><a href="http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2017-April/001509.html" target="_blank">http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2017-April/001509.html</a><br><br>and with other replies at:<br><br><a href="http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2017-April/date.html#1509" target="_blank">http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2017-April/date.html#1509</a><br><br>ICANN's history is riddled with examples of bad policy suggestions<br>that had theoretical benefits, and whose introduction was based on<br>speculative demand that never was realized. It's time to assess those<br>policies properly and honestly, and admit that they were failures. The<br>sunrise period for new gTLDs is a prime example. By Brian's analysis,<br>it can **never** be eliminated, even if just 1 user actually used it,<br>because its "theoretical" benefits can **always** be said to be high.<br><br>The purpose of this PDP is to do a proper and intellectually honest<br>review, which means looking at the actual benefits. To do otherwise is<br>to say that the outcome of this PDP is rigged and predetermined, and<br>it doesn't matter what the actual data (as measured by actual usage),<br>actual experience and actual statistical evidence, tells us.<br><br>Sincerely,<br><br>George Kirikos<br>416-588-0269<br><a href="http://www.leap.com/" target="_blank">http://www.leap.com/</a><br>_______________________________________________<br>gnso-rpm-wg mailing list<br><a href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org" target="_blank">gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org</a><br><a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg</a><br></div></div></blockquote></div><br></div></div>_______________________________________________<br>
gnso-rpm-wg mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org" target="_blank">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/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg</a></blockquote></div></div></div>