<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p>Hi All, Quick note that we did invite people to continue the
discussion of the last subteam meeting -- especially those who
were unable to join us in Kobe -- so thanks for the discussion!</p>
<p>Kathy<br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 3/27/2019 11:46 AM, Tushnet, Rebecca
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CC3BACFD-A597-4640-B3F0-199864C385B7@law.harvard.edu">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
I’m not asking for answers. I’m pointing out that without those
answers (which would indeed be quite difficult to get) we can’t
honestly answer the basic question of efficacy one way or
another. <br>
<br>
<div id="AppleMailSignature" dir="ltr">
<div>Rebecca Tushnet</div>
<div>Frank Stanton Professor of First Amendment Law, Harvard Law
School</div>
<div><br>
</div>
Sent from my phone. Apologies for terseness/typos. </div>
<div dir="ltr"><br>
On Mar 27, 2019, at 11:35 AM, BECKHAM, Brian <<a
href="mailto:brian.beckham@wipo.int" moz-do-not-send="true">brian.beckham@wipo.int</a>>
wrote:<br>
<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">Just by way of reminder, I put an email on this
list probably 2 years ago on abandonment rates. From a
godaddy blog it was something like 70% on average. Speaking
personally, I also feel it is not necessary or a good use of
this group’s time to seek to answer 1-4 from Rebecca.
<div dir="ltr"><br>
</div>
<div dir="ltr">Brian </div>
</div>
<span id="draft-break"></span><br>
<br>
Sent from my WIPO mobile<span id="draft-break"></span><br>
<br>
<div>
<div class="null" dir="auto">On 27 March 2019 at 11:18:11
GMT-4, Corwin, Philip via Gnso-rpm-trademark <<a
href="mailto:gnso-rpm-trademark@icann.org"
moz-do-not-send="true">gnso-rpm-trademark@icann.org</a>>
wrote:<br class="null">
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
style="border-left-style:solid;border-width:1px;margin-left:0px;padding-left:10px;"
class="null">
<div class="null" dir="auto">
<div class="null">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Exchange
Server" class="null">
<!-- converted from text -->
<div class="null"><font class="null" size="2"><span
style="font-size:10pt;" class="null">
<div nop="PlainText" class="null">Responding in
a purely personal capacity, I find this
mathematical analysis problematic for two
reasons.<br class="null">
<br class="null">
First, it posits that there are "2 separate
rates, namely the abandonment rate for
cybersquatters, and the abandonment rate for
good faith registrants". But there was likely
a third group that might well have constituted
a majority of non-completed registrations --
parties who had no intention of ever
registering a domain but simply wished to test
whether a particular mark had been recorded in
the TMCH.<br class="null">
<br class="null">
Second, we have no baseline abandonment rate
for domain registrations that do not generate
a Claims Notice.<br class="null">
<br class="null">
Philip S. Corwin<br class="null">
Policy Counsel<br class="null">
VeriSign, Inc.<br class="null">
12061 Bluemont Way<br class="null">
Reston, VA 20190<br class="null">
703-948-4648/Direct<br class="null">
571-342-7489/Cell<br class="null">
<br class="null">
"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch
Rickey<br class="null">
<br class="null">
-----Original Message-----<br class="null">
From: Gnso-rpm-trademark <<a
href="mailto:gnso-rpm-trademark-bounces@icann.org"
moz-do-not-send="true">gnso-rpm-trademark-bounces@icann.org</a>>
On Behalf Of George Kirikos<br class="null">
Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2019 8:25 AM<br
class="null">
To: <a
href="mailto:gnso-rpm-trademark@icann.org"
moz-do-not-send="true">gnso-rpm-trademark@icann.org</a><br
class="null">
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Gnso-rpm-trademark]
REMINDER - Proposed Agenda - RPM PDP WG TM
Claims Sub Team - 27 March 2019<br
class="null">
<br class="null">
Just to build on Rebecca's comment, we can
create a mathematical model to understand
things more easily, and try to transform the
"descriptive" analysis into a more
quantitative analysis.<br class="null">
<br class="null">
The overall abandonment rate (93.7% actual
data from the Analysis Group report) really
represents a blended rate consisting of 2
separate rates, namely the abandonment rate
for cybersquatters, and the abandonment rate
for good faith registrants (unproblematic
domains like "cloud" or "hotel" or "one").
It's a weighted average of those 2 different
abandonment rates, and we're not sure what the
true "weights" should be.<br class="null">
<br class="null">
So, let's define some variables. Let:<br
class="null">
<br class="null">
C = percentage of cybersquatting registration
attempts G = good faith / unproblematic
registration attempts P = abandonment rate for
cybersquatting registration attempts presented
with the TM Claims notices Q = abandonment
rate for good faith registration attempts
presented with the TM Claims notices R =
overall abandonment rate (blended rate, a
weighted average)<br class="null">
<br class="null">
It should be clear that:<br class="null">
<br class="null">
CP + GQ = R<br class="null">
<br class="null">
It's also true that C + G = 100% = 1.000 = 1,
so let's simplify the above even further<br
class="null">
<br class="null">
C + G = 1 ----> G = 1 - C<br class="null">
<br class="null">
CP + (1-C)Q = R<br class="null">
<br class="null">
Let's go even further, and isolate our
attention on "Q", which is essentially
collateral damage of the TM Claims system. A
high value of Q means a high abandonment rate
for good faith registration attempts.<br
class="null">
Rearranging the above equation:<br
class="null">
<br class="null">
Q = (R - CP) / (1-C)<br class="null">
<br class="null">
So, as "P" increases, then Q decreases, which
should be obvious, since we're doing a
weighted average of 2 different rates. Let's
imagine a "best case" scenario, where P is the
highest possible value, namely 100% ( =
1.0000), which would minimize the value of Q.
That means 100% of cybersquatting attempts are
thwarted by the TM Claims notices! The above
equation becomes:<br class="null">
<br class="null">
Q = (R - C) / (1-C)<br class="null">
<br class="null">
Of course we know what R is empirically, the
93.7% figure from the Analysis Group report
(0.937). Thus, we can simplify even futher:<br
class="null">
<br class="null">
Q = (0.937 - C) / (1 - C)<br class="null">
<br class="null">
Let's try different values of "C" (percentage
of cybersquatting<br class="null">
attempts) to see what that implies about the
value of Q in this best case scenario:<br
class="null">
<br class="null">
C = 10% = 0.10 -----> Q = 0.93 = 93%<br
class="null">
C = 20% = 0.20 -----> Q = 0.92125 =
92.125%<br class="null">
C = 30% = 0.30 -----> Q = 0.91 = 91%<br
class="null">
C = 40% = 0.40 -----> Q = 0.895 = 89.5%<br
class="null">
C = 50% = 0.50 -----> Q = 0.874 = 87.4%<br
class="null">
C = 60% = 0.60 -----> Q = 0.8425 = 84.25%<br
class="null">
C = 70% = 0.70 -----> Q = 0.79 = 79%<br
class="null">
C = 80% = 0.80 -----> Q = 0.685 = 68.5%<br
class="null">
C = 90% = 0.90 -----> Q = 0.37 = 37%<br
class="null">
<br class="null">
The above figures should be startling. And
remember, these are the *best case* scenarios.
If it turns out that P, the abandonment rate
for cyberquatters, is less than 100%, then the
values calculated for Q (abandonment rate for
good faith registration attempts) would become
even higher. Indeed, because it's a weighted
average, if P turns out to actually be lower
than 93.7% (i.e. hardcore cybersquatters are
ignoring the TM Claims notices, and proceeding
to registration), then that means *all* the
values above for Q would have to be *higher*
than 93.7% (and that would put
constraints/bounds on the value of "C",
otherwise one would generate impossible values
of Q that exceed 100%).<br class="null">
<br class="null">
But wait, there's more! What's a realistic
value for "C"? That's a critical value....do
we have any evidence as to what percentage of
registration attempts are
problematic//cybersquatting, vs. those that
are made in good faith and non-problematic? We
do! We have the top 10 most frequently
requested strings as per the analysis report,
which Rebecca referenced, ALL of which were
common terms like "ONE" or "HOTEL" or "CLOUD"
which have multiple legitimate and
non-infringing uses. (We also know that the
number of domains disputed via a URS or UDRP
is also small) Thus, we can infer from that
empirical data that the value of "C" is not
close to 100%, but is closer to 0%. That
implies that the collateral damage, even in
the best case scenario with 100% effectiveness
of TM claims notices on cybersquatting
registration attempts, swamps the possible
benefits of the TM Claims notices.<br
class="null">
<br class="null">
Sincerely,<br class="null">
<br class="null">
George Kirikos<br class="null">
416-588-0269<br class="null">
<a
href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.leap.com_&d=DwMGaQ&c=WO-RGvefibhHBZq3fL85hQ&r=E-M4OQvQBo8UWqE1LwEiDR3PcWlfM0I-0jiI1c4ous0&m=rYudboF0Oc2n6ucf1_74XIJ2mpuRGCQAJDnVmoBto_A&s=B2lCIYnaCvNa1Mdt6ZTmjzgawRteRw-D57BZ0aRxlOk&e="
target="_BLANK" class="null"
moz-do-not-send="true">http://www.leap.com/</a><br
class="null">
<br class="null">
On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 1:31 PM Tushnet,
Rebecca <<a
href="mailto:rtushnet@law.harvard.edu"
moz-do-not-send="true">rtushnet@law.harvard.edu</a>>
wrote:<br class="null">
><br class="null">
> I was unable to attend the Kobe meeting,
so I wanted to post my view on the first
tentative answer:<br class="null">
><br class="null">
> QUESTION 1 Is the Trademark Claims
service having its intended effect?<br
class="null">
><br class="null">
><br class="null">
> (a) Is the Trademark Claims service
having its intended effect of<br class="null">
> deterring bad-faith registrations and
providing Claims Notice to<br class="null">
> domain name applicants?<br class="null">
><br class="null">
> Tentative answer of Subteam in Kobe
session: Probably<br class="null">
><br class="null">
> RT: We don't have enough information to
make any kind of judgment about this. It
might be a deterrent, if you believe that
cybersquatters can be deterred by a notice,
but we have collected zero data that indicate
that this is true.<br class="null">
><br class="null">
> Where data are absent: (1) what
percentage of registration attempts that
received a notice turned back because of the
notice, with a huge potential range; (2) what
percentage of registration attempts that
received a notice were “cybersquatting” or
even “inadvertent trademark conflict” as
opposed to completely unproblematic uses of
strings like cloud and hotel; (3) whether the
cohort that turned back was (a) proportionate
to the problem intended to be solved, (b)
disproportionately made of cybersquatters or
other potential infringers, or (c)
disproportionately made of legitimate
potential registrants (since we have no data
on what deters cybersquatters nor any other
information about how people who intend to
cybersquat respond to notices); (4) whether
the absolute number or relative percentage of
cybersquatting attempts changed when there was
no longer a notice in place (as a change in
behavior post-notice period, or its absence,
could have provided relevant evidence); (5) we
have no data about what the general incidence
of cybersquatting in the new gTLDs is in the
first place, whether in absolute terms or as
compared to legacy gTLDs without the notice
system. In sum, there is evidence that notice
may increase costs and deter registrations,
but no evidence about what those registrations
would have been in the absence of notice.<br
class="null">
><br class="null">
><br class="null">
> At best, it is "possible" that the Claims
service is having its intended effect. There
is insufficient evidence that this effect is
"probably" happening.<br class="null">
><br class="null">
><br class="null">
><br class="null">
><br class="null">
><br class="null">
><br class="null">
> Rebecca Tushnet<br class="null">
> Frank Stanton Professor of First
Amendment Law, Harvard Law School<br
class="null">
> 703 593 6759<br class="null">
_______________________________________________<br class="null">
Gnso-rpm-trademark mailing list<br
class="null">
<a href="mailto:Gnso-rpm-trademark@icann.org"
moz-do-not-send="true">Gnso-rpm-trademark@icann.org</a><br
class="null">
<a
href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_gnso-2Drpm-2Dtrademark&d=DwMGaQ&c=WO-RGvefibhHBZq3fL85hQ&r=E-M4OQvQBo8UWqE1LwEiDR3PcWlfM0I-0jiI1c4ous0&m=rYudboF0Oc2n6ucf1_74XIJ2mpuRGCQAJDnVmoBto_A&s=I-Jgh15Di_KBtRLZxEnchQlYng1uSe3US91hOutCCmY&e="
target="_BLANK" class="null"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-trademark</a><br
class="null">
_______________________________________________<br class="null">
Gnso-rpm-trademark mailing list<br
class="null">
<a href="mailto:Gnso-rpm-trademark@icann.org"
moz-do-not-send="true">Gnso-rpm-trademark@icann.org</a><br
class="null">
<a
href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_gnso-2Drpm-2Dtrademark&d=DwMGaQ&c=WO-RGvefibhHBZq3fL85hQ&r=E-M4OQvQBo8UWqE1LwEiDR3PcWlfM0I-0jiI1c4ous0&m=rYudboF0Oc2n6ucf1_74XIJ2mpuRGCQAJDnVmoBto_A&s=I-Jgh15Di_KBtRLZxEnchQlYng1uSe3US91hOutCCmY&e="
target="_BLANK" class="null"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-trademark</a></div>
</span></font></div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<p> </p>
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"">World
Intellectual Property Organization Disclaimer: This
electronic message may contain privileged, confidential
and copyright protected information. If you have
received this e-mail by mistake, please immediately
notify the sender and delete this e-mail and all its
attachments. Please ensure all e-mail attachments are
scanned for viruses prior to opening or using.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr"><span>_______________________________________________</span><br>
<span>Gnso-rpm-trademark mailing list</span><br>
<span><a href="mailto:Gnso-rpm-trademark@icann.org"
moz-do-not-send="true">Gnso-rpm-trademark@icann.org</a></span><br>
<span><a
href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-trademark"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-trademark</a></span></div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">_______________________________________________
Gnso-rpm-trademark mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Gnso-rpm-trademark@icann.org">Gnso-rpm-trademark@icann.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-trademark">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-trademark</a></pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>