<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p>Hi George,</p>
<p>You raise some good points:</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.<i> Mary, I do think this is a valid
footnote to add for future data gathers.</i></p>
<p>Looking forward to our discussion in a few minutes.</p>
<p>Kathy<br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 9/6/2017 8:02 AM, George Kirikos
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CALAsOBmsogEDF8KnQKT18wk=ka8KtiUQirD2tg-AgzCoNcPWTQ@mail.gmail.com">
<pre wrap="">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
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.leap.com/">http://www.leap.com/</a>
On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 12:21 AM, Mary Wong <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:mary.wong@icann.org"><mary.wong@icann.org></a> wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">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
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org">gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org">gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>