<div dir="ltr">I wanted to say that RiskIQ is an INTA member, and did not participate in this survey. Before joining RiskIQ, I had a solo practice out of New York, and was an INTA member representing both medium size and fairly large companies in trademark matters. In my personal experience, the combination of sunrise and TMCH plays a vital role to mitigate abuse of the DNS with new gTLDs from a brand security perspective. I have found this personally to be true for both relatively small as well as larger companies with brands to secure from abuse. <div><br></div><div>Jonathan Matkowsky, VP - IP & Brand Security</div><div>RiskIQ, Inc.<br><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 5:08 AM, George Kirikos <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:icann@leap.com" target="_blank">icann@leap.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Kurt:<br>
<br>
That doesn't make any sense. Again, I did not reference that late July<br>
paper from EFF until you incorrectly linked my postings to it (i.e.<br>
until today). I brought up the topic of elimination of the sunrise<br>
period on April 13, see:<br>
<br>
<a href="http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2017-April/001509.html" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/<wbr>gnso-rpm-wg/2017-April/001509.<wbr>html</a><br>
<br>
"A Brave New World Without Sunrises or the TMCH"<br>
<br>
EFF made their formal proposal to eliminate the sunrise on April 19th,<br>
after I had already made my views known:<br>
<br>
<a href="http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2017-April/001619.html" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/<wbr>gnso-rpm-wg/2017-April/001619.<wbr>html</a><br>
<br>
The August 10th thread you mention:<br>
<br>
<a href="http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2017-August/002323.html" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/<wbr>gnso-rpm-wg/2017-August/<wbr>002323.html</a><br>
<br>
was **2 weeks** after the EFF paper, and had absolutely no relation to<br>
it. To suggest it came "on the heels of it" is incorrect.<br>
<br>
I was referencing only the formal call for elimination of sunrise that<br>
they made back in April (i.e. an ongoing proposal that our PDP is<br>
tasked to consider).<br>
<br>
That July paper:<br>
<br>
<a href="https://www.eff.org/wp/which-internet-registries-offer-best-protection-domain-owners" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://www.eff.org/wp/which-<wbr>internet-registries-offer-<wbr>best-protection-domain-owners</a><br>
<br>
is completely unrelated. They don't discuss the 99% reduction in<br>
sunrise utilization. I was the one that first discussed that 99%<br>
figure, in order to support their April proposal.<br>
<br>
Sincerely,<br>
<br>
George Kirikos<br>
<a href="tel:416-588-0269" value="+14165880269">416-588-0269</a><br>
<a href="http://www.leap.com/" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.leap.com/</a><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 7:38 AM, Kurt Pritz <<a href="mailto:kurt@kjpritz.com">kurt@kjpritz.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> George:<br>
><br>
> I remember Jeremy describing the paper. I was referring to the email chain<br>
> you started entitled on the heels of that paper, " 99%+ reduction in sunrise<br>
> utilization rate per TLD supports EFF call for elimination of sunrise,”<br>
> that, to me, established a link between your arguments and the paper.<br>
><br>
> Kurt<br>
><br>
> On Aug 31, 2017, at 11:46 AM, George Kirikos <<a href="mailto:icann@leap.com">icann@leap.com</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
> Hi Kurt,<br>
><br>
> On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 5:47 AM, Kurt Pritz <<a href="mailto:kurt@kjpritz.com">kurt@kjpritz.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> "1) George refers to the EFF and in past emails has particularly<br>
> referred to the EFF white paper, "Which Internet registries offer the<br>
> best protection for domain owners?” as justification for eliminated<br>
> the Sunrise RPM.....Yet, because it is “published," this is the source<br>
> cited often on this list as authority for eliminating Sunrise."<br>
><br>
> I don't recall ever referencing that particular paper in this working<br>
> group. I advocated elimination of the Sunrise RPM long before that<br>
> paper was even published. That paper only came out in late July:<br>
><br>
> <a href="http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2017-July/002256.html" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/<wbr>gnso-rpm-wg/2017-July/002256.<wbr>html</a><br>
><br>
> and as per the archives, no one ever replied to that thread. I've<br>
> searched past emails, and can't find myself referencing it all here.<br>
><br>
> My reasoning for elimination of sunrise isn't based at all on that<br>
> study, especially since the reasoning predated that study.<br>
><br>
> Not only has it not been "cited often", it's unclear anyone but Jeremy<br>
> has even mentioned it.<br>
><br>
> If you have a link to me (or anyone else for that matter) referencing<br>
> that paper on this PDP mailing list, I'd appreciate it. Otherwise, I<br>
> think you should correct your statement.<br>
><br>
> Sincerely,<br>
><br>
> George Kirikos<br>
> <a href="tel:416-588-0269" value="+14165880269">416-588-0269</a><br>
> <a href="http://www.leap.com/" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.leap.com/</a><br>
><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></blockquote></div><br></div></div></div>
<br>
<span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:12.8px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">******************************</span><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:12.8px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)"><wbr>******************************</span><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:12.8px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)"><wbr>*******<br></span><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:12.8px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">This message was sent from RiskIQ, and is intended only for the designated recipient(s). It may contain confidential or proprietary information and may be subject to confidentiality protections. If you are not a designated recipient, you may not review, copy or distribute this message. If you receive this in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete this message. Thank you.</span><p style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:12.8px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)"></p><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:12.8px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">******************************</span><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:12.8px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)"><wbr>******************************</span><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:12.8px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)"><wbr>*******</span>