[Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Data Collection Details

Kathy Kleiman kathy at kathykleiman.com
Tue Sep 30 14:10:50 UTC 2014

I think James' posting makes a lot of sense. We have some real worries 
here - freedom of expression and other forms of 
people/organizations/small businesses being pursued for a number of 
reasons -- including those not being expressly submitted to the 
Proxy/Privacy Provider.

Still evaluating, but the idea of a measurable, targeted problem makes 
enormous sense. It would give us something to work on and towards.
> While we are on the topic of data collection / statistics:
> I am wondering if there are any metrics on the use & efficacy of existing
> relay/disclose/publication mechanisms.  Useful data would include a
> general idea of the volume of requests sent, the ³hit² rate (when the
> process yields the underlying data), the ³miss² rate (no response, etc.),
> and whether this varies among service providers.
> I don¹t recall this being discussed in the WHOIS RT.  And sorry to pick on
> Susan and Michele, but was any of this collected as part of the work of
> the EWG?
> As we have previously discussed, this industry encompasses tens of
> millions of domain names and users.  If we are going to transform it, it
> should be based on a measurable and targeted problem, rather than
> outliers/exceptions.
> Thanks!
> J.
> On 9/30/14, 4:28 , "Chris Pelling" <chris at netearth.net> wrote:
>> Good morning Kiran,
>> I apologize for jumping in on this, but, I would agree with Graeme, each
>> and every case of "IP infringement" has to be investigated by the
>> registrar in the interests of the customer and the complainee, sorry if
>> that sounds rude, but, we don't and won't simply take someones "word"
>> for it that a domain / site / content has infringing material.  On
>> investigation we then notify the complainee of their options that we see
>> it fitting into regardless of a domain being under PP or not.  Its a bit
>> like someone taking their car into the dealership and complaining the
>> gears are knackered and the dealership discovers after investigation the
>> "driver" doesn't know how to use a clutch properly.    SImplistic view I
>> appreciate, but, every complaint received takes time to process even the
>> odd 1 or 2 we have received from MarkMoniter.  We probably the same for
>> Tucows and most registrars protect the respectability of our registrar
>> in the public eye.
>> My Kayako system also is not "geared" for statistics in the same fashion
>> Graeme mentioned, as there are so few cases its not something I have
>> ever considered setting up for, however your's probably is because IP
>> protection being one of your companies MAIN focuses.
>> Surely you investigate each and every claim ?  As from your text you are
>> suggesting maybe registrars should not.
>> Kind regards,
>> Chris
>> On 29/09/2014 11:44 PM, Kiran Malancharuvil wrote:
>>> Hi Graeme,
>>> Thanks for this, I appreciate the elaboration.
>>> This is good insight into how Tucows deals with and/or categorizes
>>> requests for relay/reveal/disclosure/publication.  As you know,
>>> MarkMonitor is also a Registrar, and we do provide limited privacy/proxy
>>> services for our clients.  While admitting that our business model,
>>> client base and offerings are probably quite different from our provider
>>> colleagues here, we have not encountered the same difficulties that you
>>> lay out below.
>>> Historically we have been able to classify requests for relay/reveal
>>> neatly into simple-enough categories such as "requests for the sale of
>>> the domain" or "claim of IP infringement."  Of course categories will be
>>> slightly varied amongst Registrars, but I would suspect we could find
>>> some common umbrellas that might serve to help us see a pattern/bigger
>>> picture.
>>> As far as "measuring success" is concerned, regardless of whether it
>>> "closed the ticket" or not, we do keep records about whether we
>>> disclosed or published in response to an inquiry (or relayed as is most
>>> often the case), UDRP or other request.  I feel like that would be a
>>> best practice of any Registrar in order that they may be able to track
>>> what was done and justify their actions in case there's a challenge.
>>> Like I said, MarkMonitor has a pretty unique client base, and so most
>>> of the answers to the questions that are posed to providers would not be
>>> helpful in this context.  (e.g.: our clients are extremely responsive to
>>> requests that are relayed.)  However I can say that in the past eight
>>> years of data, there has not been a request for disclosure that wasn't
>>> related to a claim of IP infringement.
>>> As a side note, slightly off topic but relevant to the categorization
>>> topic and other discussions in this group, I note with concern your
>>> statement about categorizing claims of IP infringement.  You state that
>>> "If someone claims IP infringement, but our investigation yields no such
>>> issue, does the category still stand?"  Why is Tucows investigating and
>>> essentially determining the validity of an infringement claim?  At
>>> MarkMonitor we categorize based on what the claimant asserts (and act
>>> accordingly by relaying, etc.), but leave adjudication to WIPO or NAF
>>> professionals (for example), or courts.
>>> Thanks!  Looking forward to discussing further on list and on
>>> tomorrow's call.
>>> Best,
>>> Kiran
>>> Kiran Malancharuvil
>>> Policy Counselor
>>> MarkMonitor
>>> kiranm at markmonitor.com<mailto:kiranm at markmonitor.com>
>>> 415-222-8318 (t)
>>> 415-419-9138 (m)
>>> ________________________________
>>> From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org
>>> [gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org] on behalf of Graeme Bunton
>>> [gbunton at tucows.com]
>>> Sent: Sunday, September 28, 2014 3:47 PM
>>> To: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org
>>> Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Data Collection Details
>>> So, requests 3 and 4 on our list were:
>>> 3 - Can providers give the WG some general information about the
>>> percentage of requests for disclosure that are successful
>>> 4 - For Q4, do providers also have information about the type of claims
>>> those relate to e.g. If they are from LEA, 3P IP claim etc.?
>>> And I agreed to provide some colour as to why these are probably
>>> difficult questions to answer.  The below should be true for most
>>> providers (and really, for any support system), but should any Registrar
>>> colleagues disagree, feel free to chime in.
>>> The concise reason is that compliance desks are optimized for
>>> throughput of issues, and not for policy related reporting.
>>> In more detail -
>>> Compliance (or whatever dept that deals with issues around domains) may
>>> not use a ticketing system.  If the provider is small enough, it may
>>> just be an email address.   There is no obligation for anyone to use a
>>> system that is even capable of producing data, or from which data may
>>> easily be extracted.
>>> Even if they do use a system robust enough to allow for reporting, the
>>> data we're requesting may not typically be captured in the course of an
>>> investigation, or even useful for the running of the business. For
>>> question 3, for example, 'successful disclosure' is mostly relevant to
>>> the requester, but is not an attribute required to close the ticket.
>>> That information may be captured as text inside a description, but if
>>> it's not a specific flag on the ticket, it's very very difficult to
>>> report on accurately.  We at Tucows occasionally mine the text of the
>>> tickets related to our retail operations, and the results are always
>>> considerably noisy.
>>> Question 4 presumes that requester type as well as as issue type are
>>> ticket attributes.  I would think that some such systems do capture the
>>> issue type (IP, defamation, offensive, etc etc) but each service
>>> provider is going to have differently defined categories that may cause
>>> difficulty in the aggregation.  As well, just because a claim is made,
>>> doesn't mean it has any particular validity which impacts
>>> categorization.  If someone claims IP infringement, but our
>>> investigation yields no such issue, does the category still stand?  As
>>> well, because requests are usually dealt with manually, categorizing
>>> requesters may be unlikely, aside from a distinction between LEA and
>>> 'other'.
>>> Lastly, as should be clear from previous discussions, there are very
>>> few black and white issues that we see.  Given the variety of issues and
>>> the multitude of interest areas that they cross, straightforward
>>> classification is exceptionally difficult, and analysis that attempts to
>>> place requests into distinct buckets is going to lose a substantial
>>> amount of detail.  Nonetheless, I'm in the process of looking into our
>>> system at the moment to see if possible to sketch out some trends.
>>> Unfortunately, we migrated to a new platform earlier this year, so there
>>> is not much to draw from.
>>> Graeme
>>> _________________________
>>> Graeme Bunton
>>> Manager, Management Information Systems
>>> Manager, Public Policy
>>> Tucows Inc.
>>> PH: 416 535 0123 ext 1634
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list
>>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org
>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
>> _______________________________________________
>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list
>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
> _______________________________________________
> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list
> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg

More information about the Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list