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

[Phil Corwin]

Hopefully our private protections subteam will be able to shed some light on the utilization of registry blocking services.

Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal
Virtualaw LLC
1155 F Street, NW
Suite 1050
Washington, DC 20004
202-559-8597/Direct
202-559-8750/Fax
202-255-6172/Cell

Twitter: @VLawDC

"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey

Sent from my iPad

On Aug 9, 2017, at 11:51 AM, claudio di gangi <ipcdigangi at gmail.com<mailto:ipcdigangi at gmail.com>> wrote:

George,

I agree with you on the need for objective data and metrics, which all too often is sorely lacking in gTLD policy development.

As per my previous note, what are your thoughts on how to calculate-in the effect of blocking services on the analysis of the number of Sunrise registrations?

If "example.newgTLD" is 'registered' through a blocking service - such as the DPML , that domain is not registered during Sunrise across hundreds of gTLDs operated by the registry.

In fact, the blocked domain represents the ultimate form of a defensive registration because it can not be used, and therefore no incremental benefits may accrue to the registrant (however slight).

I believe the issue is further complicated because we do not know how many domains have been blocked in this manner through these services.

Thanks!

Best,
Claudio


On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 11:28 AM George Kirikos <icann at leap.com<mailto:icann at leap.com>> wrote:
Hello,

On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 11:16 AM, Susan Payne <susan.payne at valideus.com<mailto:susan.payne at valideus.com>> wrote:
> A handful of gamers does not equal a failing policy.  Let's spend our time fruitfully addressing the gaming, rather than endlessly recirculating this argument.

But, 130 sunrise registrations per TLD equals a "successful" policy?
The *proportion* of gaming is a huge factor, combined with the
absolute level of uptake, to tip the scales here, as well as the costs
to other prospective legitimate registrants from jumping the queue.

What exactly is the standard for a "failed" policy at ICANN? As Jeremy
rightly stated, the evidence should not be ignored. For far too long,
ICANN has not defined any "success" or "fail" metrics, and that must
change.

I can see why every sunrise is a "success" if part of your business is
built upon consulting revenue for sunrises:

https://valideus.com/services/validation-services

but most folks can easily adjust to a landrush-only system, instead,
which is clearly superior overall. While some "sunrise consultants"
might lose out, just as buggy whip producers went out of business,
everyone else was better off -- that's progress. Indeed, some sunrise
consultants might become "landrush consultants" instead...

Sincerely,

George Kirikos
416-588-0269
http://www.leap.com/
_______________________________________________
gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
_______________________________________________
gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org<mailto: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/20170809/6173fab0/attachment-0001.html>