[gnso-rpm-wg] FOR REVIEW & DISCUSSION: Draft collated proposal for Sunrise-related data collection

[claudio di gangi]

Just to clarify on the overides, I believe they are actually limited only
to other SMD file holders and/or other trademark owners.

On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 8:20 AM claudio di gangi <ipcdigangi at gmail.com>
wrote:

> George, Paul,
>
> When analyzing the number of Sunrise registrations in the last round, how
> do you suggest factoring-in to the analysis the number of DPML/other
> blocking mechanisms, that function as defensive, non-resolving
> registrations across hundreds of new gTLDs?
>
> Once a trademark is 'blocked' through one of these additional marketplace
> RPMs (for several thousand dollars per mark) - currently offered on a
> voluntary basis as an alternative to Sunrise, to reduce social costs
> imposed by the new gTLD program, that mark is defensively 'registered'
> across hundreds of new gTLDs (at the same time, any of these DPML 'domains'
> can be overridden by a non-trademarked registrant upon request to the
> registry operator).
>
> On a related point, we have numbers on the number of domains blocked
> through these services?
>
> Thanks!
>
> Best,
> Claudio
>
> On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 7:11 AM George Kirikos <icann at leap.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi folks,
>>
>> On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 11:47 AM, Beckham, Brian <brian.beckham at wipo.int>
>> wrote:
>> > Finally, the suggestion that Sunrises may not be meeting their intended
>> > purpose due to low uptake statistically-speaking (also as to documented
>> > abuses) seems to widely miss the mark.  As J Scott and others pointed
>> out on
>> > the call, the intended purpose is to provide an opportunity to get
>> ahead of
>> > infringing registrations.  Whether that opportunity is taken up by a
>> brand
>> > owner is an altogether separate question.
>>
>> This analysis is deeply flawed. It attempts to justify the continued
>> existence of the sunrise by measuring "theoretical benefits", despite
>> the low uptake rate, as opposed to "actual realized benefits" (as
>> measured by the actual low update, data that is actually observable),
>> when comparing against the costs of the sunrise period (to competing
>> good faith registrants, etc.).
>>
>> For example, consider a public library branch that is in a large
>> neighbourhood of 100,000 people, but is only used by 100 people per
>> year. Using Brian's flawed analysis, the branch should be kept open,
>> because "theoretically", 100,000 people have the opportunity to use it
>> (even though 99,900 don't actually use it). Instead, it should be
>> closed because only 100 people actually use it. The actual benefits
>> (the usage by a mere 100 users) are what matter, when compared against
>> the costs.
>>
>> I agree with the analysis of Paul Keating in this thread, who properly
>> weighed the actual benefits (low), vs the costs, and came out in
>> favour of elimination of the sunrise period.
>>
>> As I discussed in a previous thread on this topic, sunrise demand
>> would shift to the landrush period when the sunrise period is
>> eliminated. Appropriate safeguards could be instituted to reduce
>> cybersquatting in that landrush (e.g. loser pays UDRP costs for
>> landrush registrations, thereby raising the bar for those
>> registrations, compared to general availability, or other mechanisms
>> suggested). See the (long) thread in April 2017, starting with:
>>
>> http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2017-April/001509.html
>>
>> and with other replies at:
>>
>> http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2017-April/date.html#1509
>>
>> ICANN's history is riddled with examples of bad policy suggestions
>> that had theoretical benefits, and whose introduction was based on
>> speculative demand that never was realized. It's time to assess those
>> policies properly and honestly, and admit that they were failures. The
>> sunrise period for new gTLDs is a prime example. By Brian's analysis,
>> it can **never** be eliminated, even if just 1 user actually used it,
>> because its "theoretical" benefits can **always** be said to be high.
>>
>> The purpose of this PDP is to do a proper and intellectually honest
>> review, which means looking at the actual benefits. To do otherwise is
>> to say that the outcome of this PDP is rigged and predetermined, and
>> it doesn't matter what the actual data (as measured by actual usage),
>> actual experience and actual statistical evidence, tells us.
>>
>> 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
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/attachments/20170809/1c48b2e8/attachment.html>