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

[Greg Shatan]

I think all you need is a variable field in the claims notice that is
filled in with standard language based on the trigger for the notice.

On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 11:55 AM, Steve Levy <slevy at accentlawgroup.com>
wrote:

> Phil, are you suggesting that different claims notices should be sent
> depending on what element of the domain triggered the notice? I think this
> is a good idea if it’s technically feasible without undue expense.
> Depending on how (if) Greg’s proposal is implemented, perhaps we could keep
> things manageable by only creating one notice form for each of the
> categories specified in his proposal.  This could then simply be coded, by
> the TMCH, to send the appropriate notice.
>
> Regards,
> Steve
>
> Steven M. Levy, Esq.
>
> *Accent Law Group, Inc.*
> 301 Fulton St.
> Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19147
>
> United States
>
> Phone: +1-215-327-9094 <(215)%20327-9094>
> Email: slevy at AccentLawGroup.com <slevy at accentlawgroup.com>
>
> Website: www.AccentLawGroup.com <http://www.accentlawgroup.com/>
>
> <http://www.accentlawgroup.com/>LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/in/
> stevelevy43a/
>
> From: <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Phil Corwin <
> psc at vlaw-dc.com>
> Date: Wednesday, May 31, 2017 at 9:11 AM
> To: Phil Corwin <psc at vlaw-dc.com>, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>,
> gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>
>
> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] A Proposal for Smarter Non-Exact Matches
>
> 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 <(202)%20559-8597>/Direct*
>
> *202-559-8750 <(202)%20559-8750>/Fax*
>
> *202-255-6172 <(202)%20255-6172>/Cell*
>
>
>
> *Twitter: @VlawDC*
>
>
>
> *"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey*
>
>
>
> *From:* gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@
> icann.org <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 <(202)%20559-8597>/Direct*
>
> *202-559-8750 <(202)%20559-8750>/Fax*
>
> *202-255-6172 <(202)%20255-6172>/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
> <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/20170531/7060c965/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Accent Law Logo NEW Very Small.png
Type: image/png
Size: 17053 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/attachments/20170531/7060c965/AccentLawLogoNEWVerySmall-0001.png>