<div><div dir="auto">George,</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">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. </div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">None of these factors necessarily implies the damage from the abusive registration is small, as to suggest it shouldn't count in the assessment.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">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. </div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">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). </div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">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. </div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">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. </div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">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.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Best,</div><div dir="auto">Claudio</div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div>On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 12:08 PM George Kirikos <<a href="mailto:icann@leap.com">icann@leap.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Claudio: We're just discussing collecting data for this call. Without<br>
the data to analyze, we can't come to the appropriate conclusions.<br>
<br>
If you believe that "Claims Brought Under National Law", and<br>
"Suspensions" should also be added to the data collection, as long as<br>
they're TM related, you won't find disagreement from me. I believe<br>
"enforcement demand letters" are already in the data collection (C&D<br>
letters?)?<br>
<br>
As for "no action is taken", that seems to imply the damage from<br>
alleged abuse is so minor that it's not affecting the company, and/or<br>
is minimal/non-existent. If you believe there's a dataset available<br>
for "no action is taken", please propose one.<br>
<br>
There are of course differences between the UDRP and URS. I would<br>
think that the UDRP cases are the more serious infringements (higher<br>
cost to pursue, but also greater "reward", namely the transfer of the<br>
domain).<br>
<br>
Sincerely,<br>
<br>
George Kirikos<br>
416-588-0269<br>
<a href="http://www.leap.com/" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.leap.com/</a><br>
<br>
On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 11:56 AM, claudio di gangi <<a href="mailto:ipcdigangi@gmail.com" target="_blank">ipcdigangi@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> George,<br>
><br>
> Often UDRP cases are not initiated for several years after the abusive<br>
> registration of the domain. In many cases, this adds the additional burden<br>
> on the trademark owner to monitor the domain for evidence of bad faith for<br>
> an extended period of time. In your view, how should this factor be<br>
> reflected in the statistics?<br>
><br>
> Also, at any point in time the level of cybersquatting in a TLD does not<br>
> directly correspond to the number of UDRP cases for the reason stated above,<br>
> and because of other issues related to addressing abusive registrations such<br>
> as: 1) enforcement demand letters, 2) claims brought under national law, 3)<br>
> suspensions by the registrar or registry (in the case of phishing), or 4) no<br>
> action is taken because the trademark owner is not aware of and/or does not<br>
> have the resources to pursue all abusive registrations. How do you think<br>
> these factors should be calculated into the equation?<br>
><br>
> Best,<br>
> Claudio<br>
><br>
> On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 8:02 AM George Kirikos <<a href="mailto:icann@leap.com" target="_blank">icann@leap.com</a>> wrote:<br>
>><br>
>> For the collection of data regarding the URS/UDRP cases, it doesn't<br>
>> appear that any data is being collected regarding how many domains<br>
>> were registered in the same periods that *didn't* generate URS/UDRP<br>
>> complaints. That was an essential point, which was already raised<br>
>> previously (and appeared in a previous document), in order to ensure<br>
>> that it is a relative measurement (not an absolute one).<br>
>><br>
>> Also, when the data is being compiled for URS/UDRP complaints, it<br>
>> appears it's only checking whether the domain name was registered<br>
>> within a TMCH claims period. It should be broken down into even more<br>
>> detail, i.e. was the name registered in (a) landrush period (i.e.<br>
>> post-sunrise) with TMCH claims notice, (b) GA period with TMCH claims<br>
>> notices (i.e. post landrush), or (c) GA period without TMCH claims<br>
>> notices. If it turns out that the rate of cybersquatting in the<br>
>> landrush period was low, that supports the argument that the sunrise<br>
>> period can be eliminated without major harmful effects. On the other<br>
>> hand, if it turns out that the rate of cybersquatting in the landrush<br>
>> period was too high, that might argue for the retention of sunrises.<br>
>><br>
>> When pulling down WHOIS records, be careful to ensure that the domain<br>
>> hasn't been deleted and re-registered (might require use of historical<br>
>> WHOIS, e.g. from DomainTools.com).<br>
>><br>
>> With regards to "expanded match", it is going to be prohibitively<br>
>> expensive, in my opinion, relative to the other questions we're tasked<br>
>> with, since it basically requires building nearly the full system in<br>
>> question to test it with the historical data, etc. I've already<br>
>> pointed out the huge number of expanded terms generated by each rule,<br>
>> in a past email. Greg (or someone else) should generate all the<br>
>> relevant matches manually for a subset of common terms, e.g. taken<br>
>> from the Top 500 most commonly requested terms we've been waiting for<br>
>> from The Analysis Group), and those expanded matches should be<br>
>> evaluated by the working group, before hundreds of thousands of<br>
>> dollars, or even millions of dollars, are invested to build out the<br>
>> actual system being proposed.<br>
>><br>
>> There's a point in #8 (Contractors) about "ICANN staff to work with<br>
>> Deloitte and/or IBM to obtain aggregated, anonymized statistics<br>
>> demonstrating percentage of disputed domains that were registered in<br>
>> Sunrise and that generated a Claims Notice." That doesn't make sense<br>
>> to me --- in order to register in Sunrise, didn't one *need* to be a<br>
>> TM owner that had also purchased a recordal in the TMCH??<br>
>><br>
>> Under point #12 (middle column), it says "Compilation of all URS<br>
>> cases" -- shouldn't that have also included UDRP cases (for new gTLD<br>
>> domains), to match point #7, which measured both?<br>
>><br>
>> Generally, the data requests appear to be unbalanced, in that they are<br>
>> more focused on evaluating all possible harms of cybersquatting (e.g.<br>
>> "all form of consumer harm" in one point) in order to justify<br>
>> retention of the RPMs, while not balancing that out by looking for<br>
>> *all* data that could document the possible benefits of elimination of<br>
>> the RPMs in question (including, but not limited to, points I've<br>
>> already raised that are not reflected in the current draft data<br>
>> requests).<br>
>><br>
>> Sincerely,<br>
>><br>
>> George Kirikos<br>
>> 416-588-0269<br>
>> <a href="http://www.leap.com/" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.leap.com/</a><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 12:21 AM, Mary Wong <<a href="mailto:mary.wong@icann.org" target="_blank">mary.wong@icann.org</a>> wrote:<br>
>> > Dear all,<br>
>> ><br>
>> ><br>
>> ><br>
>> > The proposed agenda for our next Working Group call, coming up today at<br>
>> > 1700<br>
>> > UTC, is as follows:<br>
>> ><br>
>> ><br>
>> ><br>
>> > Roll call (via Adobe Connect and phone bridge only); updates to<br>
>> > Statements<br>
>> > of Interest<br>
>> > Review draft GNSO Council data collection request (including suggested<br>
>> > prioritization levels from the Working Group co-chairs)<br>
>> > Next steps/next meeting<br>
>> ><br>
>> ><br>
>> ><br>
>> > For agenda item #2, the following documents are attached:<br>
>> ><br>
>> > A draft request to the GNSO Council, in the form prescribed by the GNSO<br>
>> > Operating Procedures, outlining the request, the rationale for the<br>
>> > request,<br>
>> > an initial estimated budget and list of possible sources, as well as<br>
>> > attachments detailing the Charter questions and data collection tasks<br>
>> > being<br>
>> > contemplated.<br>
>> ><br>
>> ><br>
>> ><br>
>> > A Google Doc showing all the various data collection tasks identified to<br>
>> > date (as noted in Attachment 2 to the draft request form described<br>
>> > above),<br>
>> > where the Working Group co-chairs have noted a preferred prioritization<br>
>> > level to each task.<br>
>> ><br>
>> ><br>
>> ><br>
>> > The staff understanding is that we will be focusing on a review of the<br>
>> > Google Doc on the call.<br>
>> ><br>
>> ><br>
>> ><br>
>> > Thanks and cheers<br>
>> ><br>
>> > Mary<br>
>> ><br>
>> ><br>
>> > _______________________________________________<br>
>> > gnso-rpm-wg mailing list<br>
>> > <a href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org" target="_blank">gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org</a><br>
>> > <a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg</a><br>
>> _______________________________________________<br>
>> gnso-rpm-wg mailing list<br>
>> <a href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org" target="_blank">gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org</a><br>
>> <a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg</a><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
gnso-rpm-wg mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org" target="_blank">gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg</a><br>
</blockquote></div></div>