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@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@markmonitor.com<mailto:kiranm@markmonitor.com>
415-222-8318 (t)
415-419-9138 (m)
________________________________ From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] on behalf of Graeme Bunton [gbunton@tucows.com] Sent: Sunday, September 28, 2014 3:47 PM To: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@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@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg