[Gnso-rpm-trademark] Recordings, Attendance & AC Chat from Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) Sub Team for Trademark Claims call on Friday, 16 June 2017 at 16:00 UTC
Justine Chew
justine.chew at gmail.com
Tue Jun 20 03:03:27 UTC 2017
Hi,
Has the table of questions and desirable data been updated since the last
subteam call?
Thanks,
Justine
-----
On Jun 17, 2017 4:15 AM, "Michelle DeSmyter" <michelle.desmyter at icann.org>
wrote:
> Dear All,
>
>
>
> Please find the attendance of the call attached to this email. The MP3,
> Adobe Connect recording and Adobe Connect chat below for the Review of all
> Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) *Sub Team for **Trademark Claims *call
> held on Friday, 16 June 2017 at 16:00 UTC*. *Attendance of the call is
> posted on agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/_kjwAw
>
> *MP3: * https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-rpm-review-
> trademark-claims-16jun17-en.mp3
>
> *Adobe Connect recording: * https://participate.icann.org/p6erdmrfxmh/
>
>
>
> The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO
> Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar[
> gnso.icann.org]
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_group-2Dactivities_calendar&d=DwMFAg&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=8_WhWIPqsLT6TmF1Zmyci866vcPSFO4VShFqESGe_5iHWGlBLwwwehFBfjrsjWv9&m=53guiRzsIm52y2arEi1oK3cZB85_WaVbAwT-RuOvf1U&s=rgxIRrQDuq51-CxCB7m2-j6VZSbzaD_sax3FXJHB7Ss&e=>
>
>
>
> ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list **
>
>
>
> Mailing list archives: *http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-trademark/*
> <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-trademark/>
>
>
>
> Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/_kjwAw
>
>
>
> Thank you.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Michelle
>
>
>
>
>
> *Adobe Connect chat **transcript for 16 June 2017:*
> Michelle DeSmyter:Welcome to the Review of all Rights Protection
> Mechanisms (RPMs) Sub Team for Trademark Claims on Friday, 16 June 2017 at
> 16:00 UTC
> Michelle DeSmyter:Agenda wiki page: https://urldefense.
> proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_-
> 5FkjwAw&d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=8_
> WhWIPqsLT6TmF1Zmyci866vcPSFO4VShFqESGe_5iHWGlBLwwwehFBfjrsjWv9&m=
> vIzIINx8AG7ijzn4zzo5T2dG-O19GlVizOk_W8s_aAw&s=
> hmCPyd5VtqSrwEGvoUP3rdYZWIWVV8ZnbgcT41kB-Ec&e=
> Greg Shatan:All, I just sent around a further revision of the questions,
> using Justine's version as a jumping off point. Sorry not to get it done
> further in advance of the call.
> Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:thanks Greg, we'll include
> that in our discussion today.
> Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:I'm hearing a little
> echo....just me?
> Amr Elsadr:Kristine's additions to the rest of the questions are in red
> font in the text, but may not be very clear.
> Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:4. Does the exact match
> criteria for Trademark Claims Notices limit its usefulness? a. What is
> the evidence of harm under the existing system?.i. Are there studies,
> reports or articles discussing the harm of typosquatting and other forms of
> non-exact-match cybersquatting?ii. What is the actual experience of
> brandowners?iii. What is the link between non-exact-match cybersquatting
> and phishing,malware distribution, botnets, counterfeiting, and other
> related harms?iv. What information can be gleaned from UDRP/URS studies?
> What are the limitations of relying on UDRP/URS studiesv. What other
> sources of information should be used to explore the level of harm? b.
> Should the matching criteria for Notices be expanded? i. If so,
> how (which criteria) and why?A. Review each suggested non-exact
> match ii. What results (including unintended consequences) might
> each suggested form of expansion of matching criteria have? iii.
> What balance should be adhered to in striving to deter bad-fa
> Amr Elsadr:I have Greg's proposal ready for upload into the AC room, so
> let me know when.
> Greg Shatan:Thanks, both Amr and Kristine. Probably easier to read in
> the AC room version.
> Michael R Graham:Support Greg's version limited to: 4/a/b/c/d/i/ii/iii
> and not the other data subquetions.
> Michael R Graham:"Subquestions"
> Philip Corwin:Agree with Greg that we should examine different types of
> non-eact matches separately, not as an indivisible whole
> Philip Corwin:Don't agree with proposed 4iii -- we are tasked to look at
> protection of TM rights, not other types of harm
> Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Agree
> Michael R Graham:@Phil and Greg -- Agree: Proposed or Exposed other
> non-exact matches types should be subject of separate, specific queries.
> Greg Shatan:Phil, we can't look a this in a vacuum.
> Philip Corwin:We also need to add looking at what types of changes in
> language of notice to domain registarnts would need to be made for
> different types of non-exact matches
> Michael R Graham:Agree with Kristine re: data gathering items.
> Rebecca Tushnet:+1 Michael
> Michael R Graham:@Phil -- Woud that be 4.d.i.?
> Amr Elsadr:Current google doc with all the questions here:
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-
> 3A__docs.google.com_document_d_13u5h6Wh6QUqW0vzT5q0zCTEmjMQ8-
> 5FiCat6ZehLHQC7Q_edit&d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6
> sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=8_WhWIPqsLT6TmF1Zmyci866vcPSFO4VShFqESGe_
> 5iHWGlBLwwwehFBfjrsjWv9&m=vIzIINx8AG7ijzn4zzo5T2dG-
> O19GlVizOk_W8s_aAw&s=ArJ_W1KRj6l-hvdkb9tO2HHXiGdjNJ4VMp0i4xUAnBA&e=
> Philip Corwin:@Michael -- yes, but also need to examine whether one
> master notice is sufficient or whether different notice would need to be
> generated for different types of matches
> Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Thanks Phil...that was a
> part of the original Qs that may have been left behind.
> Greg Shatan:The desk chair's not even cold yet....
> Greg Shatan:We could ask for the actual experience and practices of
> cybersquatters as well.
> Greg Shatan:I guess they are a subcategory of registrants....
> Rebecca Tushnet:I use a walking desk...
> Amr Elsadr:Welcome back, Michael.
> Rebecca Tushnet:But indeed it could be interesting to find out how many
> malware etc. distributors use nonexact matches
> Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Amr: Two suggestions I
> noted so far. 1. 4(a) should include the same analysis for the current
> claims system as well as the proposed ones. and 2. 4(b) should include a
> reference to an analysis of each proposed non-exact match.
> Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Third suggestion: Should the
> text of the claims notice be different for various matches/situations?
> Rebecca Tushnet:+1 Phil
> Rebecca Tushnet:That's a good point--some have suggested in the main
> group that notices should only go to one side, and we should add a question
> about that (though I doubt I will support that in the end)
> Michael R Graham:@Kristine -- Agree
> Michael R Graham:NOTE: Should we identify any terms in our questions
> that need definition/clarification for the main group? I'm thinking of the
> need to be sure we change "Registrant" to "Applicant" when referring to
> entities that applied for a domain but abandoned the application.
> Michael R Graham:@Susan: Agree need to keep our eye on Consumer
> Protection -- this consideration should be part of the main group's answers
> to questions.
> Amr Elsadr:@Michael: Justine had the same observation RE: "users" in
> question 3, which might more appropriately be changed to "potential
> registrants".
> Philip Corwin:To clarify, I stipulated that other types of harm may be
> associated with a cybersquatted domain. So that any analysis of the
> incidence of typosquats will implicitly capture that. What I don't favor is
> detailed inquiry into the degree to which a type of non-TM harrm is
> associated with a partiucular form of non-exact match.
> Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Amr, I think we need to
> stick with the definition we've agreed to
> Michael R Graham:@Amr -- I would use the more accurate "applicants" --
> "potential registrants" suggests that EXCEPT FOR notice they would have
> been able to register and would have proceeded to register the applied for
> domain names.
> Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:We do want to review the
> impact of the Claims notice on both types of users.
> Greg Shatan:I am referring particularly to spearphishing and fraud.
> Michael R Graham:@Kristine -- Two Suggestions: Looking at Question 3,
> if we include question re: users, should we also include question about
> post-registration notice to TMCH Registrant? Also, change 3.c. "potential
> registrants" to "applicants"
> Susan Payne:phil I can assure you that some of the most effective scams
> involve the typo domains because the recipient who makes a cursory check of
> the domain reads it as the name they are expecting
> Michael R Graham:@Phil -- Agree as clarified. Thanks.
> Susan Payne:I think we have a difference of iopinion on what is a trade
> mark harm.. potential customers who are scammed create a major
> reputational risk for brands in addition to the harms to the member of the
> public
> Greg Shatan:Superannuated hand.
> Michael R Graham:@Susan -- That is exactly correct. I believe TM
> owners would agree that a vast majority, if not all of identified phishing
> schemes targeting their customers and suppliers use domain names that
> incorporate known or TMCH-registered trademarks.
> Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:https://docs.google.
> com/document/d/13u5h6Wh6QUqW0vzT5q0zCTEmjMQ8_iCat6ZehLHQC7Q/edit
> Philip Corwin:Again, I stipulated for the record that any or all of
> those harms may be associated with typosquatted domains. I'm not saying
> that shouldn't factor into our analysis of each type of non-exact match. I
> just don't favor extended inquiry into the extent to which each type of
> further harm is associated with a partucular form of NEM, especially as I
> doubt that any data available is that granular.
> Amr Elsadr:Actually, with the data we have from the AG, we can't even
> confirm that all trademark records downloaded and contributing to the
> abandonment rate had any association with attempted registrations at all.
> Philip Corwin:what is the alternative term?
> Amr Elsadr:"applicant"/"domain name applicants"/"cart holders"
> Philip Corwin:I'm fine with DN applicant
> Philip Corwin:Don't like cart holder at all
> Philip Corwin:Indeed, if the registration is deterred by the TM Claims
> Notice the domain never gets to the cart
> Michael R Graham:@Kristine -- Hate to be the latecomer to the party and
> suggest changing the party's color scheme -- but Updated Question =1.b.
> change "good-faith registrations" to "good-faith domain name applications"
> Susan Payne:fine by me
> Greg Shatan:Ok, here. No intent, including an intent to register a
> domain name.
> Rebecca Tushnet:What about "what does the customer see in the process?"
> Rebecca Tushnet:That can't be proprietary
> Susan Payne:and brand owners do receive claims notices too
> Amr Elsadr:Sorry. Dropped off the call.
> Amr Elsadr:Back on now.
> Michael R Graham:@Kristine -- Agree to removal of Q4
> Susan Payne:totally agree
> Michael R Graham:@Susan -- Great explanation -- and Agree
> Susan Payne:great work Kristine and Michael
> Michael R Graham:@Kristine -- THANKS!
> Amr Elsadr:Thanks all. Bye.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gnso-rpm-trademark mailing list
> 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/20170620/1be10d96/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Gnso-rpm-trademark
mailing list