<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">Hi Paul,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">I’m not sure that it is of little significance other than to confirm there is a problem, but the important point is that it does confirm there is a problem and
I am happy to see you confirming too. The report might be helpful in assisting us in fashioning fixes, but it is up to this group to come up with something that is appropriate for the ICANN ecosystem, so we can lean on the report, but not to the exclusion
of all the other good ideas we come up with. Thanks for taking the time to respond to my initial post!<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">As far as the basis for jurisprudence, I guess mine is multi-faceted with some of the components being the protection of the rights of those presumed innocent
and also protection of the innocent from known harms. In other words, we can presume the innocence at the start of the trial for the person who got the ticket for allegedly running the stop sign, but that doesn’t prohibit us from putting up the stop signs
in the first place.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">Thanks for taking the time to respond to my initial post! I’m looking forward to working with you and others toward a constructive way to address the problem
identified in the Georgia Tech study.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">Best,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">Paul<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> Paul Keating [mailto:paul@law.es]
<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Friday, November 17, 2017 7:56 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> icannlists <icannlists@winston.com><br>
<b>Cc:</b> George Kirikos <icann@leap.com>; gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Article on Combo-squatting study conducted by Georgia Instutute of Technology and Stony Brook University affecting our discussion of Trademark + Industry Terms in the TMCH, Sunrise and Claims (among other RPMs that it may also
implicate)<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Paul<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">I am not sure what your basis of jurisprudence is but where i come from the law is intended to protect the rights of those presumed innocent. I have never seen any credible system of jurisprudence that elevates efficiency over such rights.
Nor have i seen one that is built around a presumption of badness.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">I for one will not support a system with known problems simply because the majority of cases brought concern abuse or clearly offensive conduct.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Thus, the report is of little significance other than to confirm that there is a problem. The issue of what system is used to address the problem or what rules are used remains to be seen.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt">Paul<o:p></o:p></p>
<div id="AppleMailSignature">
<p class="MsoNormal">Sent from my iPad<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><br>
On 17 Nov 2017, at 14:30, icannlists <<a href="mailto:icannlists@winston.com">icannlists@winston.com</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt">Hi George,<br>
<br>
You raise a fair point. With just 268 US based marks examined, the abuse is beyond rampant. If we are to extrapolate to other well-known marks, for example the excellent examples you mention - pharma, childrens toys, the abuse moves from beyond rampant to
just plain old staggering, even without assuming (as you did in your note) of a 1 to 1 ration of abuse between the 268 noted examples and the remaining marks in the world.<br>
<br>
Unfortunately for the abusers in the domain name industry, it will not be possible to un-shine the light that the Georgia Tech study has shown on them. It is up to all of us to deal with the head on. Glad to see you joining in that effort!!<br>
<br>
Best,<br>
Paul<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
-----Original Message-----<br>
From: gnso-rpm-wg [<a href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org">mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org</a>] On Behalf Of George Kirikos<br>
Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2017 5:49 PM<br>
To: gnso-rpm-wg <<a href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org">gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org</a>><br>
Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Article on Combo-squatting study conducted by Georgia Instutute of Technology and Stony Brook University affecting our discussion of Trademark + Industry Terms in the TMCH, Sunrise and Claims (among other RPMs that it may also implicate)<br>
<br>
P.S. Where the math really starts to break down is if one attempts to extrapolate this to the larger population of all markholders and marks worldwide. Remember, this was just 268 *US* ones. Even "Lego"<br>
wouldn't have been on the list (famous for their voluminous UDRP filings), since their Alexa rank is around 2647 worldwide, 1,785 in the USA (see
<a href="https://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/lego.com">https://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/lego.com</a> ), and thus not in the top 500. Many of those pharma brands that are famous and see a lot of cybersquatting aren't in the Alexa top 500 either (I won't name them,
lest they trigger spam warnings).<br>
<br>
What % of worldwide marks is 268? Far below 1%. But, let's suppose that they represent 1% of cybersquatting. Would it be argued that 2.7 million "bad" domains for that subset of 268 marks means that the number of "bad" domains classified as "combosquatting"
must be 100 times 2.7 million, or 270 million? Depending on how one extrapolates, one might even generate a claimed total abuse (just from combosquatting, not even counting all the other types of typosquatting, etc.) that exceeds the actual total number of
domain name registrations quite easily (which is absurd).<br>
<br>
Sincerely,<br>
<br>
George Kirikos<br>
416-588-0269<br>
<a href="http://www.leap.com/">http://www.leap.com/</a><br>
<br>
On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 5:23 PM, George Kirikos <<a href="mailto:icann@leap.com">icann@leap.com</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal">The numbers appear overstated. After a first pass, I don't see the<o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal">complete list of all 268 of the marks they studied (maybe I missed<o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal">it), but several (Amazon, Adobe, Delta, Yahoo) still appear to be<o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal">dictionary words where it would be false to claim that Mark+Dictionary<o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal">word is automatically "bad." Indeed, when you look at table 7 at the<o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal">top right of page 11, they classify 86.6% of the so-called<o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal">"combosquatting pages" as "Unknown", and only 13.39% as "Malicious".<o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal">And of those alleged "malicious" ones, 69.9% were an ambiguous<o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal">"trademark abuse" (not phishing, social engineering, or "affiliate<o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal">abuse"), which seems likely to yield even more false positives.<o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal">Their attempt at detecting "false positives" leaves much to be<o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal">desired, i.e. whitelisting only the top 10,000 Alexa domains (see page<o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal">4, Alexa list). My company's <a href="http://math.com">math.com</a> domain name wouldn't get<o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal">white-listed by that standard (and it gets millions of visitors/year).<o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal">Neither would <a href="http://school.com">school.com</a>. Alexa Top 10,000 sites get enormous traffic<o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal">--- many legitimate but lower traffic sites wouldn't be whitelisted<o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal">by their methodology.<o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal">Importantly, they didn't seem to use WHOIS or Zone Files in their data<o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal">sets (see page 4, section 3.2). i.e. they trumpet the "468 billion DNS<o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal">records" (many DNS requests and website visits are generated by bots,<o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal">not human beings, these days), but there are perhaps roughly 150<o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal">million gTLD domain names for which ICANN makes policy.<o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal">And it would seem, by their methodology, that they might even count<o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal">defensive registrations by brand owners themselves as "combo<o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal">squatting". e.g. if Microsoft owns <a href="http://MicrosoftOffice.com">
MicrosoftOffice.com</a>, does that get<o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal">accounted for properly? 2.7 million domains divided by 268 marks<o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal">equals 10,074 domains/mark, which sounds like a lot, but Microsoft<o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal">already owns tens of thousands of domains, according to DomainTools:<o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><a href="https://whois.domaintools.com/microsoft.com">https://whois.domaintools.com/microsoft.com</a><o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal">as do many of the other markholders like Google, Yahoo, etc. I hope<o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal">those weren't counted improperly.<o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal">I think seeing the results by TLD would also be useful (e.g. .TK<o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal">domains are free, and openly abused), as well as what effect the<o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal">"promos" from new gTLDs has had (e.g. domains under $1/yr), and<o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal">whether historic domain tasting might have also accounted for some of<o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal">the measurements.<o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal">Not saying the problem doesn't exist, as there are lots of bad actors.<o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal">But, if it was a "growing threat" as claimed, the evidence would be<o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal">directly observable via increased lawsuits, increased UDRP filings,<o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal">etc. More important would be to discern whether there is an increase<o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal">in the number of bad actors, rather than just measuring things by<o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal">domains. e.g. 2.7 million bad actors registering one domain name each<o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal">is a lot different than 10 bad actors registering 270,000 bad domains<o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal">each. I think the latter situation is to be preferred, from a policy<o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal">perspective (i.e. better to have tools to handle the<o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal">industrial-cybersquatter, where the incidence of false positives and<o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal">collateral damage from policymaking will be lower). Others might<o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal">correct me, but it's my sense from media reports that more of the bad<o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal">actors have shifted their focus to social media and apps abuse, rather<o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal">than domain abuse, to generate traffic (e.g. Facebook, Android apps,<o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal">etc.). Due to tools like Chrome "Safebrowing" blacklists, rarely do I<o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal">ever actually encounter abusive domains these days.<o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal">Sincerely,<o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal">George Kirikos<o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal">416-588-0269<o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><a href="http://www.leap.com/">http://www.leap.com/</a><o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal">_______________________________________________<br>
gnso-rpm-wg mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org">gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg</a><br>
<br>
________________________________<br>
The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. If this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this
message without the permission of the author. Any tax advice contained in this email was not intended to be used, and cannot be used, by you (or any other taxpayer) to avoid penalties under applicable tax laws and regulations.<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
gnso-rpm-wg mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org">gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg</a><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>