[Gnso-rpm-trademark] FOR DISCUSSION: Summary of comments on abandonment rate

[Dorrain, Kristine]

Thanks for your feedback, Justine.  We appreciate the difficult hour for you and welcome your participation however we can get it. I will share your feedback with the group during the discussion.  I do believe that we’re about to start down the road of “is the data available or not” today and your email timing is perfect.

Best,

Kristine

From: gnso-rpm-trademark-bounces at icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-trademark-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Justine Chew
Sent: Friday, June 02, 2017 7:55 AM
To: gnso-rpm-trademark at icann.org
Subject: Re: [Gnso-rpm-trademark] FOR DISCUSSION: Summary of comments on abandonment rate

Dear all,

Firstly, thank you for all your efforts in settling the Claims Charter Questions of 26 May. I have had the pleasure of following the discussions via the sub team call recordings and email trails. While I do not begrudge the timing of the weekly calls, I have to confess that Sat midnight is a rather awkward time for me and so have had to forego joining the same.

Back to the issue of abandonment rate data, I think the comments collated in the table dated 1 June 2017 are adequate, even somewhat overlapping. For me, the key challenge boils down to what Kathy K. has alluded to in 2a. ie what value is there in the 93.7% abandonment rate.

While I acknowledge and applaud the approach of setting aside any pretext of whether such data is available or not in compiling these comments, I seriously doubt that the Analysis Group report authors would have neglected to ask for all relevant data from TMCH etc. That said, I would be happy to be wrong in this instance, and I would be happy to defer to you all in settling this table for onward purposes.

Thanks,

Justine
-----

On 2 June 2017 at 11:19, Phil Corwin <psc at vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc at vlaw-dc.com>> wrote:
Thanks Mary, useful document.

I’ll be interested to hear on tomorrow’s call how much of this data might actually be available.

Best, Philip

From: gnso-rpm-trademark-bounces at icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-trademark-bounces at icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rpm-trademark-bounces at icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-trademark-bounces at icann.org>] On Behalf Of Mary Wong
Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2017 8:49 PM
To: gnso-rpm-trademark at icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-trademark at icann.org>
Subject: [Gnso-rpm-trademark] FOR DISCUSSION: Summary of comments on abandonment rate

Dear all,

As requested, staff has prepared a summary document that notes the comments made by Sub Team members on the call last week concerning abandonment rate of domain registrations following the receipt of a Claims Notice (see attached). The document reflects comments made by Sub Team co-chair Kristine Dorrain; please note that co-chair Michael Graham may also have additional comments for the call tomorrow (Friday 2 June).

Our understanding is that this document is intended to assist the Sub Team with its finalization of suggested data collection needs, which will be the focus of the Sub Team call on 2 June.

Thanks and cheers
Mary


From: <gnso-rpm-trademark-bounces at icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-trademark-bounces at icann.org>> on behalf of Amr Elsadr <amr.elsadr at icann.org<mailto:amr.elsadr at icann.org>>
Date: Friday, May 26, 2017 at 17:37
To: "gnso-rpm-trademark at icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-trademark at icann.org>" <gnso-rpm-trademark at icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-trademark at icann.org>>
Subject: [Gnso-rpm-trademark] Action Items from Trademark Claims Sub Team Call - 26 May 2017

Dear Sub Team Members,

Below are the action items from today’s Sub Team call. The action items, notes, meeting documents and materials and attendance are posted here: https://community.icann.org/x/qSDwAw[community.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_qSDwAw&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=BmwtTAYzxgHUcPYP2vAK617vkWOCkAhpV5GaVDMxUjk&s=YkJCCX4JXgHUfJVWMQk4jQy3a_9_OZKKl8VcrPRIf7Q&e=>. The transcripts will also be posted on this page, when they are available.

Especially noteworthy is that the Sub Team members on today’s call agreed that the Sub Team has completed refinement of the Charter questions it was mandated to review. As per action item 6 below, the Sub Team Co-Chairs will report this to the Working Group Co-Chairs.

Thanks.

Amr


Action Items:

1.      Staff to replace “innocent infringers” with “potential registrants” and “legal notice” with “notice” in Question 1.a.
2.      Staff to confirm whether the dispute rate in the Analysis Group report included UDRP cases only, URS cases only, or a combination of both
3.      Staff to capture and summarize the various comments made during the call regarding the abandonment rate presented in the Analysis Group report, and circulate to the Sub Team mailing list for further discussion
4.      Sub Team members to fill “Data Available/Collection Needed” with suggestions on what type of data the Working Group needs
5.      Sub Team to review the summary of data placed in the google doc by staff
6.      Sub Team Co-Chairs will report to the Working Group Co-Chairs that the Sub Team has a final list of proposed Charter questions


_______________________________________________
Gnso-rpm-trademark mailing list
Gnso-rpm-trademark at icann.org<mailto:Gnso-rpm-trademark at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-trademark

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-trademark/attachments/20170602/a912d627/attachment-0001.html>