[Gnso-rpm-trademark] Actions & Notes: RPM Trademark Claims Sub Team Meeting 16 January 2019 1700 UTC

[Julie Hedlund]

Dear All,

 

Please see below the action items and notes captured by staff from the RPM Trademark Claims Sub Team meeting held on 16 January 2019 (17:00-18:00 UTC).  Staff have posted to the wiki space the action items and notes.  Please note that these are high-level notes and are not meant as a substitute for the recording, chat room, or transcript. The recording, AC chat, transcript and attendance records are posted on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/2019-01-16+Sub+team+for+Trademark+Claims+Data+Review. 

 

Best Regards,

Julie

Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

 

==

 

NOTES & ACTION ITEMS

 

Actions:

 

Sub Team Homework (see separate email for instructions): By Tuesday, 22 January 2019 at 17:00 UTC, the Trademark Claims Sub Team is tasked to provide further input, if any, in the Google Docs set up for all Claims Charter Questions (see the instructions in the message sent separately):
Claims Charter Question 1:  https://docs.google.com/document/d/1A5PSNNrAFS2bFvNoMFx-5DQUNhXpnocOrEbT1XL480E/edit?usp=sharing [docs.google.com]  
Claims Charter Question 2: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1hvt63HvVdNdYIZxKVMXHq3fIEFxfnweT0F3ZXsJU_Q8/edit?usp=sharing [docs.google.com]
Claims Charter Question 3: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WLE91cg73avpWHkzczNCnxw1ALWyhWqGZOnnrmqTsH4/edit?usp=sharing [docs.google.com]
Claims Charter Question 4:  https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WBfc0bWkylDY4Ijr2I_-5hRjnYKPDjSYw9DQnlh7WHY/edit?usp=sharing [docs.google.com]  
Claims Charter Question 5: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1mzlgFxnIeG1zrJGKap0zllmQaKfu4U3UMuSp8FhcYc8/edit?usp=sharing [docs.google.com]
 

Notes:

 

1. Updates to Statements of Interest (SOIs): No updates were provided.

 

2. Continue survey analysis:

 

Claims Charter Question 3(a):

 

Griffin Barnett's comments (see full comments for details):

-- Some people were worried or intimidated by the claims notice.

-- At the same time the data showed that 83% of perspective registrants continued, so they weren't necessarily deterred.

-- Looking at the reason why people indicated they abandoned a registration.

-- A fairly high number of people indicated their confidence in understanding the notice, so appears contradictory.

-- Claims notice could be improved as well as translations.

 

Kathy Kleiman's comments (see full comments for details):

-- Seems that the normal registrants group didn't understand the notice.

-- They tell us they are confused.

-- Translations aren't taking place.

 

Claims Charter Question 3(b):

 

Kathy Kleiman's comments (see full comments for details):

-- Cannot pre-register a domain name.

-- Problems by registrars encountered in operation/technical.

 

Discussion:

-- What happens during implementation the TMCH decided that they would expire claim IDs (tokens) every 48 hours -- so only valid for 48 hours.  A lot of customers lost out.  48-hour window caused a lot of problems.

-- Could change to having the claim ID expired only if it has changed.

-- They didn't "register" 6 months in advance because they weren't eligible to register at that point.

-- If the problem is that people aren't paying attention, or there is some technical issue, then we should think about sending the notice later to give them more time to think about it.

-- Seems that the notice deters some registrants but not all; general agreement that the language can be improved.

-- No data that delaying the notice would have a positive effect.

-- The positive effect -- which might or might not be worth it, (hear from more people) -- is (1) in implementation of notice delivery/first come first served and (2) time to consider and get advice if needed instead of the pressure to complete the registration process.  I agree with Kathy--those are relevant data for whether we should consider various solutions.

-- Seems that there is some data that the registrars and registrants had some problems.  There is some data, but doesn't answer the questions yes or no.

-- Can still provide pre-registration, but if there is no change why should it expire?

 

Claims Charter Question 4:

 

Griffin Barnett's comments (see full comments for details):

-- A lot of the subparts of this question seem to relate more to conclusions.

-- Looking at people who reported seeing a claims notice.

-- Somewhat tenuous to what the survey questions were seeking.

 

Discussion:

-- Just for the record:  this question was designed to follow the "what are the problems", then "what are the proposed solutions" format.  So we would not expect the survey to directly answer b-d.    The survey was intended to invite stories of harm.  We figured we'd come up with solutions on our own.

-- Data shows that the registrants are confused.

-- Did seem to related to the TM owners tab (exact matches). 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-trademark/attachments/20190116/c118014b/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4630 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-trademark/attachments/20190116/c118014b/smime-0001.p7s>