[gnso-rpm-wg] A Proposal for Smarter Non-Exact Matches

[Phil Corwin]

PS—An additional question: While arguably in the realm of our upcoming Claims Notice review, how and to what extent would the language of the notice need to be altered and expanded to accurately inform the potential domain registrant of the reason that he/she received the Notice? Would there need to be additional language for each new category of non-exact matches, or would we be able to generate a customized claims notice based on the category that triggered it?

This question stems from the consideration that when considering policy changes we should also consider implementation details and practicalities.

Thanks

Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal
Virtualaw LLC
1155 F Street, NW
Suite 1050
Washington, DC 20004
202-559-8597/Direct
202-559-8750/Fax
202-255-6172/Cell

Twitter: @VlawDC

"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey

From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Phil Corwin
Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2017 10:46 PM
To: Greg Shatan; gnso-rpm-wg
Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] A Proposal for Smarter Non-Exact Matches

Greg:

Thank you for submitting this proposal. I think it will certainly help focus our ongoing discussion.

Attached is a copy of the proposal annotated by initial comments and questions it has raised for me in my personal capacity. I hope you will be prepared to address them in your presentation or follow-up WG dialogue.

See you on the call tomorrow.

Best, Philip

Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal
Virtualaw LLC
1155 F Street, NW
Suite 1050
Washington, DC 20004
202-559-8597/Direct
202-559-8750/Fax
202-255-6172/Cell

Twitter: @VlawDC

"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey

From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan
Sent: Monday, May 29, 2017 10:12 PM
To: gnso-rpm-wg
Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] A Proposal for Smarter Non-Exact Matches

All,

As I've mentioned earlier, I think that a proposal to use non-exact matches other than "mark contained" matches ("dumb matches") makes sense to pursue.  Various types of matches have been discussed; however, there has been no actual proposal for "smarter" matches that can be used by the group.

The attached proposal seek to fill that gap.  It is more in the nature of an addendum to the initial proposal on non-exact matches.  However, it does provide a more formal proposal on the types of non-exact matches to be considered.  The intent is to provide a sufficient framework to discuss these types of non-exact matches and to add these non-exact matches to the proposal.

I hope that this helpful to the work of the group.

Greg
________________________________
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com/email-signature>
Version: 2016.0.8013 / Virus Database: 4776/14514 - Release Date: 05/29/17
________________________________
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com/email-signature>
Version: 2016.0.8013 / Virus Database: 4776/14514 - Release Date: 05/29/17
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/attachments/20170531/076b8183/attachment.html>