Re: [gtld-council] IPC comments
Philip Sheppard wrote:
There is no contradiction here. The IPC like the BC would prefer a system that cannot be abused by fraudsters or those who would unfairly trade on the reputation of others. In the absence of that system, sunrise/defensive registration is an abuse-preventing fall-back position imposing wasted costs on those registering (bad for Registrants, bad for their customers), while leaving the Registry with the same revenue that the Registry would get if they sold the name to a fraudster.
Problem is - you can't have both. Imposing regulation always comes at a cost. The IPC and others have requested and been granted this regulation which has created other distortions and inefficiencies. The uniqueness of this particular regulation is disturbing. Based on some quick calculations, I would venture that the net benefit is less than the net cost if one takes all of the inputs into account (cost of implementation, cost of administration, cost of services to rightsholders, benefits to rightsholders in the form of deferred or avoided UDRP/court costs, etc.,etc.)
With some pretty basic economic analysis, I think it would become pretty clear pretty quickly that mandatory sunrise programs should be sunset.
Suffice to say, I'm not holding my breath. -ross