[gnso-rpm-wg] FW: Inferences (was Re: Mp3, Attendance, AC recording & AC Chat Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) PDP Working Group)

[Greg Shatan]

Of course, this proves that we actually "know" nothing of the sort.

First, as far as I know, we have no idea whether the HOTEL or HOTELS TMCH
registrations represent "gaming/abuse" (see my earlier email in this thread
on "false positives").  These could be bona fide trademark registrations
and bona fide TMCH registrations for all we know.  (As also noted in my
earlier email, HOSTING and THE do appear to represent gaming/abuse.)

Second, trying to manufacture a percentage of sunrise domain registrations
based on "gamed/abused" TMCH records in the "average Sunrise" is artificial
and useless.  We have no idea how many "gamed/abused" TMCH records have
actually been registered in any given Sunrise (or the "average Sunrise"),
and no information on which to base any assumptions.  So that "0.13" is a
junk number, and shows nothing about "higher rates for gaming of the
sunrises."  The only percentage that we could even hazard a guess at is the
total number of "gamed/abused" records in the TMCH as a percentage of all
TMCH registrations.  Taking the two known likely gamed/abused marks (THE
and HOSTING) and dividing by the total number of TMCH records
(approximately 40,000) yields a percentage of 0.00005.  Of course, that
doesn't prove your point, but it's a more valid number than 0.13.  Even you
assume 200 gamed/abused records instead of 2, the percentage is still only
0.005 (one-five hundredth of one percent).

Percentage of domains resulting in UDRPs is only a marginally more relevant
statistic.  What is the denominator here?  All domain registrations ever?
All new gTLD registrations in a year?  All registrations within X days of
sunrise in a new gTLD.  And of course this tells us very little about the
number of abusive/infringing domain registrations out there.  I've seen
numbers indicating that when brandowners take action regarding an
infringing domain, that action is a UDRP only about 20% of the time.
Furthermore, brandowners have grown weary of playing "whack-a-mole" and
choose not to take action regarding a significant number of domains that
may be infringing.  Assuming for the sake of argument that this is also
20%, each UDRP represents roughly 25 infringing domains.  So, taking your
assumption of a 0.1% rate for bringing UDRPs, that means that roughly 2.5%
of all domains could be considered infringing.

Taking a step back, I don't see the utility of comparing the (unknowable)
percentage of sunrise registrations based on gamed/abused TMCH records to
the percentage of UDRPs over all (new gTLD) registrations.  It tells us
nothing.

But, if it does, I think it tells us that infringing domains are roughly
500 times more likely than abused/gamed TMCH records.

Greg

On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 12:08 PM, George Kirikos <icann at leap.com> wrote:

> Hi Susan,
>
> On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 11:54 AM, Susan Payne <susan.payne at valideus.com>
> wrote:
> > George K - could you explain what you mean by the following:
> >
> > "We already know that the percentage of gamed/abused sunrise
> registrations exceeds the proportion of domains that lead to a UDRP."
> >
> > How do we know this?
>
> Thank you for your question. We know that the overall rate of UDRPs
> relative to registrations is far below 0.1% (either for new gTLDs or
> legacy gTLDs like .com/net/org). So, even if we assume 0.1% as the
> benchmark (actual benchmark might be more like 0.01%), we've seen
> higher rates than that for gaming of the sunrises (i.e. 1% of the
> average 130 sunrise registrations would be 0.13 domains per TLD, and
> we've multiple ones like HOTEL, HOTELS, THE, HOSTING, and so on
> already identified, without systematic and complete access to the TMCH
> to reveal even more of them.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> George Kirikos
> 416-588-0269
> http://www.leap.com/
> _______________________________________________
> gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
> gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/attachments/20170717/ac51df0a/attachment.html>