[gnso-rpm-wg] Agenda and documents for RPM Working Group call on Wednesday 6 September 2017

Wed Sep 6 16:08:26 UTC 2017

Claudio: We're just discussing collecting data for this call. Without
the data to analyze, we can't come to the appropriate conclusions.

If you believe that "Claims Brought Under National Law", and
"Suspensions" should also be added to the data collection, as long as
they're TM related, you won't find disagreement from me. I believe
"enforcement demand letters" are already in the data collection (C&D
letters?)?

As for "no action is taken", that seems to imply the damage from
alleged abuse is so minor that it's not affecting the company, and/or
is minimal/non-existent. If you believe there's a dataset available
for "no action is taken", please propose one.

There are of course differences between the UDRP and URS. I would
think that the UDRP cases are the more serious infringements (higher
cost to pursue, but also greater "reward", namely the transfer of the
domain).

Sincerely,

George Kirikos
416-588-0269
http://www.leap.com/

On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 11:56 AM, claudio di gangi <ipcdigangi at gmail.com> wrote:
> George,
>
> Often UDRP cases are not initiated for several years after the abusive
> registration of the domain. In many cases, this adds the additional burden
> on the trademark owner to monitor the domain for evidence of bad faith for
> an extended period of time. In your view, how should this factor be
> reflected in the statistics?
>
> Also, at any point in time the level of cybersquatting in a TLD does not
> directly correspond to the number of UDRP cases for the reason stated above,
> and because of other issues related to addressing abusive registrations such
> as: 1) enforcement demand letters, 2) claims brought under national law, 3)
> suspensions by the registrar or registry (in the case of phishing), or 4) no
> action is taken because the trademark owner is not aware of and/or does not
> have the resources to pursue all abusive registrations. How do you think
> these factors should be calculated into the equation?
>
> Best,
> Claudio
>
> On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 8:02 AM George Kirikos <icann at leap.com> wrote:
>>
>> For the collection of data regarding the URS/UDRP cases, it doesn't
>> appear that any data is being collected regarding how many domains
>> were registered in the same periods that *didn't* generate URS/UDRP
>> complaints. That was an essential point, which was already raised
>> previously (and appeared in a previous document), in order to ensure
>> that it is a relative measurement (not an absolute one).
>>
>> Also, when the data is being compiled for URS/UDRP complaints, it
>> appears it's only checking whether the domain name was registered
>> within a TMCH claims period. It should be broken down into even more
>> detail, i.e. was the name registered in  (a) landrush period (i.e.
>> post-sunrise) with TMCH claims notice, (b) GA period with TMCH claims
>> notices (i.e. post landrush), or (c) GA period without TMCH claims
>> notices. If it turns out that the rate of cybersquatting in the
>> landrush period was low, that supports the argument that the sunrise
>> period can be eliminated without major harmful effects. On the other
>> hand, if it turns out that the rate of cybersquatting in the landrush
>> period was too high, that might argue for the retention of sunrises.
>>
>> When pulling down WHOIS records, be careful to ensure that the domain
>> hasn't been deleted and re-registered (might require use of historical
>> WHOIS, e.g. from DomainTools.com).
>>
>> With regards to "expanded match", it is going to be prohibitively
>> expensive, in my opinion, relative to the other questions we're tasked
>> with, since it basically requires building nearly the full system in
>> question to test it with the historical data, etc. I've already
>> pointed out the huge number of expanded terms generated by each rule,
>> in a past email. Greg (or someone else) should generate all the
>> relevant matches manually for a subset of common terms, e.g. taken
>> from the Top 500 most commonly requested terms we've been waiting for
>> from The Analysis Group), and those expanded matches should be
>> evaluated by the working group, before hundreds of thousands of
>> dollars, or even millions of dollars, are invested to build out the
>> actual system being proposed.
>>
>> There's a point in #8 (Contractors) about "ICANN staff to work with
>> Deloitte and/or IBM to obtain aggregated, anonymized statistics
>> demonstrating percentage of disputed domains that were registered in
>> Sunrise and that generated a Claims Notice." That doesn't make sense
>> to me --- in order to register in Sunrise, didn't one *need* to be a
>> TM owner that had also purchased a recordal in the TMCH??
>>
>> Under point #12 (middle column), it says "Compilation of all URS
>> cases" -- shouldn't that have also included UDRP cases (for new gTLD
>> domains), to match point #7, which measured both?
>>
>> Generally, the data requests appear to be unbalanced, in that they are
>> more focused on evaluating all possible harms of cybersquatting (e.g.
>> "all form of consumer harm" in one point) in order to justify
>> retention of the RPMs, while not balancing that out by looking for
>> *all* data that could document the possible benefits of elimination of
>> the RPMs in question (including, but not limited to, points I've
>> already raised that are not reflected in the current draft data
>> requests).
>>
>> Sincerely,
>>
>> George Kirikos
>> 416-588-0269
>> http://www.leap.com/
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 12:21 AM, Mary Wong <mary.wong at icann.org> wrote:
>> > Dear all,
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > The proposed agenda for our next Working Group call, coming up today at
>> > 1700
>> > UTC, is as follows:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Roll call (via Adobe Connect and phone bridge only); updates to
>> > Statements
>> > of Interest
>> > Review draft GNSO Council data collection request (including suggested
>> > prioritization levels from the Working Group co-chairs)
>> > Next steps/next meeting
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > For agenda item #2, the following documents are attached:
>> >
>> > A draft request to the GNSO Council, in the form prescribed by the GNSO
>> > Operating Procedures, outlining the request, the rationale for the
>> > request,
>> > an initial estimated budget and list of possible sources, as well as
>> > attachments detailing the Charter questions and data collection tasks
>> > being
>> > contemplated.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > A Google Doc showing all the various data collection tasks identified to
>> > date (as noted in Attachment 2 to the draft request form described
>> > above),
>> > where the Working Group co-chairs have noted a preferred prioritization
>> > level to each task.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > The staff understanding is that we will be focusing on a review of the
>> > Google Doc on the call.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Thanks and cheers
>> >
>> > Mary
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
>> > gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
>> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
>> _______________________________________________
>> gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
>> gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg