<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class="">My recollection is that the Analysis Group could not obtain the data to determine a cart abandonment rate caused by the claims notice, that registrars were the only ones in a position to collect such data, and that registrars did not collect the data and did not have (either) the wherewithal or desire (I forget which one) to collect it retrospectively. <div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">We can ask for a study, but I am pretty darned sure the information we want is not available. We have no data on this issue to guide the discussion. </div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">However, building on Brian’s suggestion, this group should specify the data needed to measure RPM benefits and costs going forward. I think it is included in the ICANN process that any PDP should include data gathering requirements to measure the PDP’s effectiveness. To my knowledge, that has never been done and certainly not done in the case of RPMs. </div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">(Pretty exciting stuff on these lists recently.)</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Kurt<br class=""><div class="">
<div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: -webkit-auto; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; " class=""><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: -webkit-auto; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; " class=""><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: -webkit-auto; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; " class=""><div class="">________________</div><div class="">Kurt Pritz</div><div class=""><a href="mailto:kurt@kjpritz.com" class="">kurt@kjpritz.com</a></div><div class="">+1.310.400.4184</div><div class="">Skype: kjpritz</div><div class=""><br class=""></div></div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"></div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"></div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
</div>
<br class=""><div style=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Jun 9, 2017, at 3:45 PM, Brian F. Cimbolic <<a href="mailto:BCimbolic@pir.org" class="">BCimbolic@pir.org</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><div class="">Thanks J. Scott and understood. That being said, it seems that a running commentary from both sides of this issue is that there is no direct evidence supporting either position. Could this PDP be in a position to remedy that by asking ICANN to commission a survey/study to try to cut to the heart of the matter? Perhaps the survey could examine abandonment rates and registrant responses to receipt of the Claims notice. This is obviously in the "spitballing" phase of an idea, but it seems the only way to get over the hump on this issue is to have some objective source for all sides to look to. <br class=""><br class="">Thanks.<br class=""><br class="">Brian Cimbolic<br class="">Deputy General Counsel, Public Interest Registry<br class="">Office: +1 703 889-5752| Mobile: + 1 571 385-7871| <br class=""><a href="http://www.pir.org" class="">www.pir.org</a> | Facebook | Twitter | Instagram | YouTube <br class=""> <br class=""> <br class="">Confidentiality Note: Proprietary and confidential to Public Interest Registry. If received in error, please inform sender and then delete.<br class=""><br class="">-----Original Message-----<br class="">From: J. Scott Evans [<a href="mailto:jsevans@adobe.com" class="">mailto:jsevans@adobe.com</a>] <br class="">Sent: Friday, June 09, 2017 10:28 AM<br class="">To: Brian F. Cimbolic <<a href="mailto:BCimbolic@pir.org" class="">BCimbolic@pir.org</a>>; Rebecca Tushnet <<a href="mailto:Rebecca.Tushnet@law.georgetown.edu" class="">Rebecca.Tushnet@law.georgetown.edu</a>>; Beckham, Brian <<a href="mailto:brian.beckham@wipo.int" class="">brian.beckham@wipo.int</a>><br class="">Cc: <a href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org" class="">gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org</a><br class="">Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] TMCH data on abandonment<br class=""><br class="">Brain. Point taken. I don’t mean to be flippant. That said, I am growing increasing tired of there always being a negative inference from behaviors from those that are overall hostile to RPMs in general. My point is that as a proponent of RPMs and someone who worked diligently for over 9 months to come up with these RPMs that the abandonment rate does not automatically indicate that the system is not working as intended.<br class=""><br class=""><br class="">J. Scott Evans<br class="">408.536.5336 (tel)<br class="">345 Park Avenue, Mail Stop W11-544<br class="">Director, Trademarks<br class="">408.709.6162 (cell)<br class="">San Jose, CA, 95110, USA<br class="">Adobe. Make It an Experience.<br class=""><a href="mailto:jsevans@adobe.com" class="">jsevans@adobe.com</a><br class="">www.adobe.com<br class=""><br class=""><br class=""><br class=""><br class="">On 6/9/17, 7:24 AM, "Brian F. Cimbolic" <BCimbolic@pir.org> wrote:<br class=""><br class=""> J. Scott, respectfully, what evidence is there that the Claims notice provided to registrants is not having a chilling effect for those with no intention to infringe? I understand there is not direct evidence on either side of the issue, but to say decisively that it is "Not so" about the chilling effect without providing some evidence seems unnecessarily flippant.<br class=""><br class=""> Brian Cimbolic<br class=""> Deputy General Counsel, Public Interest Registry<br class=""> Office: +1 703 889-5752| Mobile: + 1 571 385-7871| <br class=""> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=www.pir.org&data=02%7C01%7C%7C01683e8ee1db418bc47108d4af4346a4%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636326150869181271&sdata=h8qAN8le9SbhQvR0IawnyuRDu%2Fb1%2Bv2fpfbG6MNipug%3D&reserved=0 | Facebook | Twitter | Instagram | YouTube <br class=""><br class=""><br class=""> Confidentiality Note: Proprietary and confidential to Public Interest Registry. If received in error, please inform sender and then delete.<br class=""><br class=""> -----Original Message-----<br class=""> From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of J. Scott Evans via gnso-rpm-wg<br class=""> Sent: Friday, June 09, 2017 10:19 AM<br class=""> To: Rebecca Tushnet <Rebecca.Tushnet@law.georgetown.edu>; Beckham, Brian <brian.beckham@wipo.int><br class=""> Cc: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<br class=""> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] TMCH data on abandonment<br class=""> Importance: High<br class=""><br class=""> I will remind the group that Abandonment is the point. The TM Claims notice is designed to inform would-be innocent infringers that there is an issue. A high abandonment rate show that the system is working. I realize those hostile to the TM Claims feel that a high abandonment rate is proof that the Claims notice is overreaching. Not so.<br class=""><br class=""> J. Scott<br class=""><br class=""><br class=""> J. Scott Evans<br class=""> 408.536.5336 (tel)<br class=""> 345 Park Avenue, Mail Stop W11-544<br class=""> Director, Trademarks<br class=""> 408.709.6162 (cell)<br class=""> San Jose, CA, 95110, USA<br class=""> Adobe. Make It an Experience.<br class=""> jsevans@adobe.com<br class=""> www.adobe.com<br class=""><br class=""><br class=""><br class=""><br class=""> On 6/9/17, 7:16 AM, "gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Rebecca Tushnet" <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Rebecca.Tushnet@law.georgetown.edu> wrote:<br class=""><br class=""> I agree with Paul K. Unfortunately, we need better information than<br class=""> that--we need to know about, of attempts that reached the stage at<br class=""> which a notice would be provided, how many were abandoned. It's my<br class=""> understanding--though I'd be happy to learn more--that the notice<br class=""> wouldn't come when the shopping cart was filled but at checkout.<br class=""><br class=""> If we just don't have the data, then it may be that our only<br class=""> recommendation must be to get the data.<br class=""> Rebecca Tushnet<br class=""> Georgetown Law<br class=""> 703 593 6759<br class=""><br class=""><br class=""> On Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 4:56 AM, Beckham, Brian <brian.beckham@wipo.int> wrote:<br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class="">Dear all,<br class=""><br class=""><br class=""><br class="">I’m not sure what is the right venue (i.e., in the sub-group, of which I am<br class="">not a member, or to the full WG) to offer this, and it is offered merely to<br class="">help fill out some of the questions/discussion around seeking various<br class="">TMCH/Claims-related data.<br class=""><br class=""><br class=""><br class="">In the transcript for the Sub Team for Trademark Claims call on Friday, 02<br class="">June 2017 at 16:00 UTC, there was some discussion on abandonment rates. In<br class="">summary: Rebeca Tushnet suggested it would be helpful to compare<br class="">non-TMCH-related abandonment vs “regular” abandonment. Jeff Neuman recalled<br class="">that during the BIZ launch there was a high abandonment. Phil Corwin<br class="">suggested that if the non-TMCH-related abandonment rate was 80% then it may<br class="">be reasonable to conclude that there’s not a material difference between<br class="">those subject to claims notices.<br class=""><br class=""><br class=""><br class="">Mindful that it may be difficult or even impossible to obtain the desired<br class="">data (a number of reasons, including competitive (dis-)advantages, were<br class="">raised on the call), a recent GoDaddy post informs us that “An average<br class="">website loses 69 percent of sales to abandoned carts.” A second GoDaddy<br class="">article suggests it is 67%.<br class=""><br class=""><br class=""><br class="">See<br class="">https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.godaddy.com%2Fgarage%2Fsmallbusiness%2Fmarket%2Feffective-strategies-to-boost-abandoned-cart-email-conversion-rates%2F&data=02%7C01%7C%7C5323a61f9cb343c0017d08d4af42231a%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636326145971754867&sdata=PtxSnnbDMNsumNMyaHdzoZZY0jowSqg1LeeFXqplKq4%3D&reserved=0<br class="">and<br class=""><br class="">https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.godaddy.com%2Fgarage%2Findustry%2Fretail%2Fecommerce%2Fwant-to-to-increase-sales-reduce-shopping-cart-abandonment%2F&data=02%7C01%7C%7C5323a61f9cb343c0017d08d4af42231a%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636326145971754867&sdata=aOJ1E7T6ITmYfP4bMNsvQ7dJAj3QrswMl4YK42BQp6c%3D&reserved=0.<br class=""><br class=""><br class=""><br class="">There are many articles on this topic with varying figures, but they tended<br class="">to generally note abandonment rates upwards of 60%.<br class=""><br class=""><br class=""><br class="">The takeaway is that the TMCH-Claims rates observed here in the WG, while<br class="">different/higher, are arguably not materially different than e-commerce<br class="">statistics generally (certainly not the 20% noted by Phil Corwin as<br class="">signaling “a significant difference in the completion of registration.”).<br class=""><br class=""><br class=""><br class="">It is important here to recall too that many members of the WG have noted<br class="">that (for a number of reasons) registries, registrars, and registrants may<br class="">have been sending queries in large numbers, thus skewing the data upwards.<br class=""><br class=""><br class=""><br class="">Best regards,<br class=""><br class=""><br class=""><br class="">Brian<br class=""><br class=""><br class=""><br class="">Brian Beckham | Head, Internet Dispute Resolution Section | WIPO Arbitration<br class="">and Mediation Center<br class="">34 chemin des Colombettes, 1211 Geneva 20, Switzerland | T +4122 338 8247 |<br class="">E brian.beckham@wipo.int | https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=www.wipo.int&data=02%7C01%7C%7C5323a61f9cb343c0017d08d4af42231a%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636326145971754867&sdata=lenvIEKAPus7F2zCjYUJaxaYKhFe8%2B8rBpfZriFt75Y%3D&reserved=0<br class=""><br class=""><br class=""><br class=""><br class="">_______________________________________________<br class="">gnso-rpm-wg mailing list<br class="">gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<br class="">https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-rpm-wg&data=02%7C01%7C%7C5323a61f9cb343c0017d08d4af42231a%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636326145971754867&sdata=uS2vBiv2CKXZWjfp3QvSJDUUIZFpOCXlbaqpWca83yI%3D&reserved=0<br class=""></blockquote> _______________________________________________<br class=""> gnso-rpm-wg mailing list<br class=""> gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<br class=""> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-rpm-wg&data=02%7C01%7C%7C5323a61f9cb343c0017d08d4af42231a%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636326145971754867&sdata=uS2vBiv2CKXZWjfp3QvSJDUUIZFpOCXlbaqpWca83yI%3D&reserved=0<br class=""><br class=""> _______________________________________________<br class=""> gnso-rpm-wg mailing list<br class=""> gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<br class=""> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-rpm-wg&data=02%7C01%7C%7C01683e8ee1db418bc47108d4af4346a4%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636326150869181271&sdata=ma0nDH%2FEJQFyw1WraCvCRa7PfRNCUnmMJvZhZGoIKMk%3D&reserved=0<br class=""><br class=""><br class="">_______________________________________________<br class="">gnso-rpm-wg mailing list<br class="">gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<br class="">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg</div></div></blockquote></div><br class=""></div></body></html>