[Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Data Collection Details

Tue Sep 30 13:18:52 UTC 2014

Sorry, should should clarify I meant these stats from the people & groups
who make use of the current mechanisms.  The flip-side of provider stats.

Apologies for the confusion. Need coffee…

J.

On 9/30/14, 8:10 , "James M. Bladel" <jbladel at godaddy.com> wrote:

>While we are on the topic of data collection / statistics:
>
>I am wondering if there are any metrics on the use & efficacy of existing
>relay/disclose/publication mechanisms.  Useful data would include a
>general idea of the volume of requests sent, the ³hit² rate (when the
>process yields the underlying data), the ³miss² rate (no response, etc.),
>and whether this varies among service providers.
>
>I don¹t recall this being discussed in the WHOIS RT.  And sorry to pick on
>Susan and Michele, but was any of this collected as part of the work of
>the EWG?
>
>As we have previously discussed, this industry encompasses tens of
>millions of domain names and users.  If we are going to transform it, it
>should be based on a measurable and targeted problem, rather than
>outliers/exceptions.
>
>Thanks!
>
>J.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>On 9/30/14, 4:28 , "Chris Pelling" <chris at netearth.net> wrote:
>
>>Good morning Kiran,
>>
>>I apologize for jumping in on this, but, I would agree with Graeme, each
>>and every case of "IP infringement" has to be investigated by the
>>registrar in the interests of the customer and the complainee, sorry if
>>that sounds rude, but, we don't and won't simply take someones "word"
>>for it that a domain / site / content has infringing material.  On
>>investigation we then notify the complainee of their options that we see
>>it fitting into regardless of a domain being under PP or not.  Its a bit
>>like someone taking their car into the dealership and complaining the
>>gears are knackered and the dealership discovers after investigation the
>>"driver" doesn't know how to use a clutch properly.    SImplistic view I
>>appreciate, but, every complaint received takes time to process even the
>>odd 1 or 2 we have received from MarkMoniter.  We probably the same for
>>Tucows and most registrars protect the respectability of our registrar
>>in the public eye.
>>
>>My Kayako system also is not "geared" for statistics in the same fashion
>>Graeme mentioned, as there are so few cases its not something I have
>>ever considered setting up for, however your's probably is because IP
>>protection being one of your companies MAIN focuses.
>>
>>Surely you investigate each and every claim ?  As from your text you are
>>suggesting maybe registrars should not.
>>
>>
>>Kind regards,
>>
>>Chris
>>
>>On 29/09/2014 11:44 PM, Kiran Malancharuvil wrote:
>>> Hi Graeme,
>>>
>>> Thanks for this, I appreciate the elaboration.
>>>
>>> This is good insight into how Tucows deals with and/or categorizes
>>>requests for relay/reveal/disclosure/publication.  As you know,
>>>MarkMonitor is also a Registrar, and we do provide limited privacy/proxy
>>>services for our clients.  While admitting that our business model,
>>>client base and offerings are probably quite different from our provider
>>>colleagues here, we have not encountered the same difficulties that you
>>>lay out below.
>>>
>>> Historically we have been able to classify requests for relay/reveal
>>>neatly into simple-enough categories such as "requests for the sale of
>>>the domain" or "claim of IP infringement."  Of course categories will be
>>>slightly varied amongst Registrars, but I would suspect we could find
>>>some common umbrellas that might serve to help us see a pattern/bigger
>>>picture.
>>>
>>> As far as "measuring success" is concerned, regardless of whether it
>>>"closed the ticket" or not, we do keep records about whether we
>>>disclosed or published in response to an inquiry (or relayed as is most
>>>often the case), UDRP or other request.  I feel like that would be a
>>>best practice of any Registrar in order that they may be able to track
>>>what was done and justify their actions in case there's a challenge.
>>>
>>> Like I said, MarkMonitor has a pretty unique client base, and so most
>>>of the answers to the questions that are posed to providers would not be
>>>helpful in this context.  (e.g.: our clients are extremely responsive to
>>>requests that are relayed.)  However I can say that in the past eight
>>>years of data, there has not been a request for disclosure that wasn't
>>>related to a claim of IP infringement.
>>>
>>> As a side note, slightly off topic but relevant to the categorization
>>>topic and other discussions in this group, I note with concern your
>>>statement about categorizing claims of IP infringement.  You state that
>>>"If someone claims IP infringement, but our investigation yields no such
>>>issue, does the category still stand?"  Why is Tucows investigating and
>>>essentially determining the validity of an infringement claim?  At
>>>MarkMonitor we categorize based on what the claimant asserts (and act
>>>accordingly by relaying, etc.), but leave adjudication to WIPO or NAF
>>>professionals (for example), or courts.
>>>
>>> Thanks!  Looking forward to discussing further on list and on
>>>tomorrow's call.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>> Kiran
>>>
>>>
>>> Kiran Malancharuvil
>>>
>>> Policy Counselor
>>>
>>> MarkMonitor
>>>
>>> kiranm at markmonitor.com<mailto:kiranm at markmonitor.com>
>>>
>>> 415-222-8318 (t)
>>>
>>> 415-419-9138 (m)
>>>
>>> ________________________________
>>> From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org
>>>[gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org] on behalf of Graeme Bunton
>>>[gbunton at tucows.com]
>>> Sent: Sunday, September 28, 2014 3:47 PM
>>> To: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org
>>> Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Data Collection Details
>>>
>>> So, requests 3 and 4 on our list were:
>>> 3 - Can providers give the WG some general information about the
>>>percentage of requests for disclosure that are successful
>>> 4 - For Q4, do providers also have information about the type of claims
>>>those relate to e.g. If they are from LEA, 3P IP claim etc.?
>>>
>>> And I agreed to provide some colour as to why these are probably
>>>difficult questions to answer.  The below should be true for most
>>>providers (and really, for any support system), but should any Registrar
>>>colleagues disagree, feel free to chime in.
>>>
>>> The concise reason is that compliance desks are optimized for
>>>throughput of issues, and not for policy related reporting.
>>>
>>> In more detail -
>>>
>>> Compliance (or whatever dept that deals with issues around domains) may
>>>not use a ticketing system.  If the provider is small enough, it may
>>>just be an email address.   There is no obligation for anyone to use a
>>>system that is even capable of producing data, or from which data may
>>>easily be extracted.
>>>
>>> Even if they do use a system robust enough to allow for reporting, the
>>>data we're requesting may not typically be captured in the course of an
>>>investigation, or even useful for the running of the business. For
>>>question 3, for example, 'successful disclosure' is mostly relevant to
>>>the requester, but is not an attribute required to close the ticket.
>>>That information may be captured as text inside a description, but if
>>>it's not a specific flag on the ticket, it's very very difficult to
>>>report on accurately.  We at Tucows occasionally mine the text of the
>>>tickets related to our retail operations, and the results are always
>>>considerably noisy.
>>>
>>> Question 4 presumes that requester type as well as as issue type are
>>>ticket attributes.  I would think that some such systems do capture the
>>>issue type (IP, defamation, offensive, etc etc) but each service
>>>provider is going to have differently defined categories that may cause
>>>difficulty in the aggregation.  As well, just because a claim is made,
>>>doesn't mean it has any particular validity which impacts
>>>categorization.  If someone claims IP infringement, but our
>>>investigation yields no such issue, does the category still stand?  As
>>>well, because requests are usually dealt with manually, categorizing
>>>requesters may be unlikely, aside from a distinction between LEA and
>>>'other'.
>>>
>>> Lastly, as should be clear from previous discussions, there are very
>>>few black and white issues that we see.  Given the variety of issues and
>>>the multitude of interest areas that they cross, straightforward
>>>classification is exceptionally difficult, and analysis that attempts to
>>>place requests into distinct buckets is going to lose a substantial
>>>amount of detail.  Nonetheless, I'm in the process of looking into our
>>>system at the moment to see if possible to sketch out some trends.
>>>Unfortunately, we migrated to a new platform earlier this year, so there
>>>is not much to draw from.
>>>
>>>
>>> Graeme
>>> _________________________
>>> Graeme Bunton
>>> Manager, Management Information Systems
>>> Manager, Public Policy
>>> Tucows Inc.
>>> PH: 416 535 0123 ext 1634
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list
>>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org
>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list
>>Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org
>>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
>
>_______________________________________________
>Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list
>Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org
>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg