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

[Kathy Kleiman]

Hi George,

You raise some good points:

1) Collection of data re: domains which did and did not generate URS 
claims is an issue we discussed often. It came up in our data gathering 
discussions (Co-Chairs and ICANN Staff), including ICANN data gathering 
expert Berry Cobb). I would think this may be an oversight and recommend 
we add.

2) As you have seen in my prioritization, I think reaching into UDRP 
cases is going far afield. Ample time for that in Phase 2, but that's my 
opinion and we welcome yours.

3) Your warning about pulling down accurate WHOIS, and not registration 
data from a domain name re-registered to another registrant, is a fair 
one./Mary, I do think this is a valid footnote to add for future data 
gathers./

Looking forward to our discussion in a few minutes.

Kathy


On 9/6/2017 8:02 AM, George Kirikos 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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/attachments/20170906/280926ba/attachment-0001.html>