[gnso-rpm-wg] Actions & Notes: RPM PDP WG 30 May 2018
Justine Chew
justine.chew at gmail.com
Thu May 31 01:27:05 UTC 2018
Prof. Tushnet,
I had a couple of questions regarding the research you/your team undertook:-
1. Looking at the MASTER -- Enter Data worksheet, would I be correct in
concluding that only the TM Analysis columns (i.e. columns V to AB, *well
maybe excluding column AB*) called for a subjective judgment on the part of
your data entry person / RA? In other words, all data in all columns were
based on actual "matches" or "presence of matching or relevant text"
*except* for the following columns:
V: Domain name (string) identical to TM
W: Domain name contains TM + generic or related term
X: Domain name similar to TM
Y: TM is fanciful
Z: TM is arbitrary/suggestive for category
AA: TM is descriptive for category
*AB: TM owner in TMCH (mentioned in decision)*
2. Apologies if I had missed coming across it in earlier emails/calls, is
there a compendium report to the research/data that informs on assumptions
taken and any resulting patterns of statistical significance?
Many thanks
,
Justine Chew
-----
On 31 May 2018 at 05:39, Tushnet, Rebecca <rtushnet at law.harvard.edu> wrote:
> Thanks all. My deepest apologies for missing the meeting--I had conflated
> it with the later meeting today on my calendar.
>
>
> If there are specific questions I can answer, I'd be happy to do so. For
> example, there's some mention in the notes of the "assumptions" of the
> coding--I am unclear what exactly is at issue and I'd like to know so we
> can discuss in the group.
>
>
>
> Rebecca Tushnet
> Frank Stanton Professor of First Amendment Law, Harvard Law School
> 703 593 6759
> ------------------------------
> *From:* gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Julie
> Hedlund <julie.hedlund at icann.org>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, May 30, 2018 5:12:12 PM
> *To:* gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
> *Subject:* [gnso-rpm-wg] Actions & Notes: RPM PDP WG 30 May 2018
>
>
> Dear All,
>
>
>
> Please see below the action items and brief notes captured by staff from
> the Working Group call held on 30 May 2018 (1200 UTC). Staff have posted
> to the wiki space the action items and notes. *Please note that these
> will be high-level notes and are not meant as a substitute for the
> transcript or recording.* The recording, transcript, WebEx chat, and
> attendance records are posted on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/
> display/RARPMRIAGPWG/2018-05-30+Sub+Team+for+Data.
>
>
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Julie
>
> Julie Hedlund, Policy Director
>
>
>
> *Action Items:*
>
>
>
> 1. Co-Chairs will consider how to proceed with the data from Prof.
> Tushnet and send a proposal to the WG.
> 2. Co-Chairs and staff will develop programs for the ICANN62 sessions:
> 1. Session 1: Wednesday, 27 June, 10:30-12:00
> 2. Session 2: Thursday, 28 June, 09:00-10:15, and
> 3. Session 3: Thursday, 28 June, 10:30 to 12:00
>
>
>
> *Notes:*
>
>
>
> 1. Discuss what quantitative data from Rebecca’s research can be used to
> address Documents Sub Team questions about the 250 “response received” and
> 58 “respondent prevailed” cases,
>
>
>
> Introduction -- Berry Cobb:
>
> -- The intent for today’s agenda was to understand what the WG’s or Sub
> Teams next steps are for Rebecca Tushnet’s research. Within the Documents
> Sub Team that began with the foundation document with the charter questions
> created an additional column on what types of data sets would help to
> answer those questions.
>
> -- When the Document Sub Team was wrapping up it work it was about the
> time Rebecca sent the result of her coding exercise.
>
> -- WG/Sub teams can review the data to see how it might answer the charter
> questions, how this data could be used – such as put back in the sub Teams
> – or considered by the full WG.
>
> -- Rebecca’s coding data set there were 4-5 potential areas where the data
> might help the Providers Sub Team answer some questions.
>
> -- As it relates to the agenda item, staff has already done some analysis
> (staff is still reviewing the results of the data) the responses we were
> able to look at those a little bit more in depth based on the coding
> exercise. Was the response in 14 days and if not in 14 days was there a
> response in 6 months and was there a request for an extension.
>
> -- In the 58 cases where the respondent prevailed just about half of them
> there was no response, which creates a smaller subset of cases we could
> review. That would be around the area as it relates to the standard of
> proof defenses in 5.7 and 5.8.
>
> -- As it relates to Rebecca’s research there is one particular part of
> that analysis that talks about the domain’s disposition. What happened to
> it after the determination had been made. Did the domain get suspended and
> what happened after it was suspended. The WHOIS data I had provided was
> not a current query.
>
> -- I have done a fresh query against WHOIS and got 1400 from automated and
> manually fetched other 400, but this new data set will tell us whether the
> name is registered or not. Then I have looked at whether the name is under
> suspension. Of those that aren’t suspended to categorize them as to
> whether they are under brand protection, DPML, or whether the original
> registrant is using the name. Cleaning up that data.
>
> -- Having done that exercise there are two things to note: As one example
> (preliminary results) I only found one instance where domain that the
> complainant prevailed, went through suspension, became available for
> registration, and the original registrant re-registered the name. In doing
> this I noted that there were duplicate domains that had two URS cases filed
> against them. Some of which where the case that was first filed was either
> withdrawn or the claim was denied and the trademark owner resubmitted the
> claim. Another primary use case where the trademark owner prevailed in the
> original case, the domain was deleted, then it was registered by a
> different registrant and a different URS case was filed against the same
> name. It looks like it might be another useful data set.
>
> -- Trying to confirm and validate some of the pivot table.
>
> -- The question is how to proceed with the use of this data set at the
> full WG or Sub Team level.
>
>
>
> Discussion:
>
> -- There were 827 URS cases filed to date. Out of those there were
> responses in about 250. In 58 half of those came in cases where there was
> no response. The 58 is a subset of all the cases. What conclusions from
> that high level data from that research could help to draw conclusions
> about the operation of the URS – the response time, objectiveness of the
> determinations, etc. So far as whether conclusions to be drawn by the full
> WG or by the Sub Team, we don’t have enough people on the call to draw that
> conclusion.
>
> -- In the questions from the Practitioners or Providers Sub Team could
> some of those be addressed by the data? Answer: Don’t think there were
> potential data sets where the data might be useful for the Practitioners,
> but there were 4 or 5 for the providers since there were some pretty
> detailed questions and they would need to review the cases to respond. In
> the 4-5 instances where this could be helpful the providers could try to
> use the data.
>
> -- Note that it will take time for some analysis to find the appropriate
> coding columns and create a pivot table. There are several summary tabs
> that may be able to answer those questions, but likely need some manual
> analysis such as via pivot tables, to aid the WG or the Sub Team.
>
> -- Noticed that there are other questions that we can answer with the data
> using the cases by respondent tab. See some non-English speaking
> countries. If we look at the default rate for non-English speaking
> countries that could help answer some of the language related questions,
> even the success rate when the do respond.
>
> -- While this data is interesting, how are we trying to use it? Make sure
> that we don’t jump to conclusions based on raw data. We don’t have things
> we are trying to prove or disprove. Worried about taking months to look at
> data without context.
>
> -- We do have a lot of comprehensive data. There are a certain number of
> withdrawals as well. We have a lot of questions and a lot of data. We
> need to see how we can use it.
>
> -- It seems that individual members have theories that they would like to
> prove using this data. We need to be careful with the inferences that we
> draw from the data and extrapolating. For example, whether the default
> rate for non-English speakers can tell us anything. We don’t know.
>
> -- We need to be very careful about only drawing conclusions that flow
> naturally from the data and not pull things out that aren’t clearly
> supported.
>
> -- Sub Teams could perhaps review the data and decide which of their
> questions might be addressed.
>
> -- Question: Noted that there are a series of language cases, but not sure
> what that meant. Also, in the summary tables there are references to
> default, default/final, and then final. Wonder how those distinctions were
> made. Are there only 15 cases where there was a final decision in the
> instance of a default. Or there 566 cases where no final decision was
> rendered.
>
> -- What staff observed: The one tab that related to the country is only
> from the registrants location and don’t think it has more detailed
> information. The only two providers where cases were in a language other
> than English were in MFSD and ADNDRC. Haven’t come across one case from
> FORUM that wasn’t in English. The same columns of data are similar from
> the original data set that staff scraped from the providers and that is how
> they are displayed on the providers site. They will provide two kinds of
> status at it relates to the cases. What is the ultimate outcome – either
> claim was denied, domain was suspended, case was withdrawn. Then you had
> the determination and anywhere were it lists default there was no response,
> no request for an extension, and it was a default outcome that resulted in
> the domain being suspended, and/or the claim denied. In cases where there
> is a final it meant there was a response to that case that could have
> happened in the 14 days or the 6-month period. There are a few that are
> default/final, and an additional column that highlights appeals. When you
> are looking at Prof. Tushnet’s sheet the determination is what staff had
> scraped from the providers’ web sites.
>
> -- Regarding the use of an appeal, is there a place where that type of
> case has been highlighted? Answer: The Documents Sub Team did an analysis
> that was part of the summary report that the Sub Team produced. There were
> 14 appeals that we analyze, compare the case to the appeal, understand the
> responses, but didn’t dive into the aspects of the elements to prove within
> those cases other than highlighting what it was and the ultimate
> determination.
>
> -- The appeals are highlighted in the research in column AP – either coded
> as not applicable, successful, or unsuccessful and column AQ will have a
> link the appeal.
>
>
>
> Phil reading from the chat:
>
> Agree with Jeff. I think just looking at data by itself does not help
> without a context. In particular, the data has some assumptions and coding
> built into it that may not be accurate . So if we are going to look at the
> data we need to consider Rebecca's underlying assumptions as well so we
> have a better sense of what the data might or might not show.
>
> 05/30/2018 07:32:30 AM from Mary Wong to All Participants:
>
> As Berry noted, it is for the WG to decide which parts of the data, and
> how, is relevant to the scope of its work. Rebecca's RA has done a lot of
> work, but it is entirely her research that she has kindly provided to us in
> full. That doesn't mean it is all directly relevant to the WG's work, so
> that's why some of it may be very useful from the data side but perhaps not
> all.
>
> 05/30/2018 07:34:02 AM from Mary Wong to All Participants:
>
> For example, some of it seems very relevant to the Documents Sub Team
> (which highlighted the Respondent Prevailed and Response Filed cases as the
> two other categories it considered may be helpful to look at).
>
> 05/30/2018 07:35:59 AM from Mary Wong to All Participants:
>
> The other two Sub Teams may wish to see if any of the data can supplement,
> as quantitative measures, responses received from the Providers and/or
> Practitioners - since, collectively, these three Sub Teams scoped out the
> URS more or less.
>
>
>
> -- Suggestion: We have very extensive research by Prof. Tushnet that is
> not a WG document that is submitted to the WG to consider whether it could
> help to answer our revised charter questions relating to the URS. Some of
> it will be relevant to the Sub Teams. Suggest that the Co-Chairs will
> discuss this about the best way to proceed, which may be to invite members
> from the three URS Sub Teams to engage with the Professor and report back
> to the WG by ICANN62 as to the relevance of the data with respect to the
> URS charter questions. We hope to have the answers back from the
> practitioners and providers surveys by then. Co-Chairs will consider this
> and come back to the WG with a proposal for how to proceed.
>
>
>
> 2. ICANN62 Planning:
>
>
>
> Three sessions:
>
> Session 1: Wednesday, 27 June, 10:30-12:00
>
> Session 2: Thursday, 28 June, 09:00-10:15, and
>
> Session 3: Thursday, 28 June, 10:30 to 12:00
>
>
>
> -- Staff will work with the Co-Chairs to develop programs for each of the
> sessions.
>
> -- One will be talking about procedural issues leading up the publication
> of our initial report.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20180531/46e96203/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the gnso-rpm-wg
mailing list