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

claudio di gangi ipcdigangi at gmail.com
Wed Sep 6 19:58:24 UTC 2017


George,

Just to clarify one point, "No action taken" can be due to: 1) TM owner is
not yet aware of the abusive registration; 2) a satisfactory level of bad
faith evidence (cybersquatter has not yet sent extortion demand or related
factors) is not yet present; 3) the TM owner has to prioritize which
abusive registrations to pursue, and is unable to pursue this particular
registration due to lack of resources.

None of these factors necessarily implies the damage from the abusive
registration is small, as to suggest it shouldn't count in the assessment.

As described above, in some cases, the damage may be great, but the TM
owner is not yet aware of the harm. In other cases, the full extent of the
damages have not yet accrued.

It's certainly possible that in an individual case considered in isolation,
the extent of damages may be less than the cost to bring the dispute
(several thousands of dollars) and maintain the domain in perpetuity (on
the basis it is to be transferred).

But even in those cases, the impact is a net loss, and when you consider
the impact of these net losses in the aggregate - on the basis there may be
hundreds or thousands of such registrations for a particular mark, the
collective impact of such registrations can be quite significant.

Yet, in the example cited to above ("No action taken"), none of these harms
and costs are captured by simply counting the number of UDRP/URS cases.

Therefore, I don't believe counting the number of cases serves as adequate
grounds to suggest a finding that Sunrise should be eliminated because
there are simply too many other variables at play that are relevant that do
not get captured in this analysis.

Best,
Claudio

On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 12:08 PM George Kirikos <icann at leap.com> wrote:

> 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
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170906/8b6d7488/attachment.html>


More information about the gnso-rpm-wg mailing list