Berry, thanks for the further explanation. Philip S. Corwin Policy Counsel VeriSign, Inc. 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190 703-948-4648/Direct 571-342-7489/Cell "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: Gnso-rpm-documents [mailto:gnso-rpm-documents-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Berry Cobb Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2018 12:19 PM To: gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org Subject: [EXTERNAL] [Gnso-rpm-documents] FW: FOR REVIEW/INFORMATION: Updated staff compilation report on URS cases Hi All, For some reason my response did not include the mailing list. Please see below. B Berry Cobb GNSO Policy Consultant @berrycobb From: Berry Cobb [mailto:mail@berrycobb.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2018 12:13 To: 'Corwin, Philip'; 'mary.wong@icann.org' Subject: RE: [Gnso-rpm-documents] FOR REVIEW/INFORMATION: Updated staff compilation report on URS cases Hi Phil and All, It’s important to refer to the document and its findings there versus the summary that was pasted below in this thread, as there was a footnote omitted. Of the 827 cases, there were a total of 1861 domains. Many cases included two or more domains per case. On the far spectrum, there were two cases that one case contained 457domains and a second case with 202; all 659 domains in the two cases have a status of “suspended”. The disposition analysis was done for each domain of the 1861. There are instances where multiple domains may have a different disposition within one case. For example, one domain may have expired and available for registration while another domain still remains in suspended status. In this section of the analysis, it seemed appropriate to provide the data from a domain perspective and also provide a view of what it looks like from a case perspective. Hence why the initial findings include "28% of the cases (59% of domains disputed)". I think it will be a good use of time at the next sub team call to go through the data and analysis in detail in preparation for presenting this to the plenary WG. I hope this helps and happy to answer more questions on the list in the meantime. Thank you. B Berry Cobb GNSO Policy Consultant @berrycobb From: Gnso-rpm-documents [mailto:gnso-rpm-documents-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Corwin, Philip via Gnso-rpm-documents Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2018 11:40 To: mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>; gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-rpm-documents] FOR REVIEW/INFORMATION: Updated staff compilation report on URS cases Thanks. Can you please clarify what something like “28% of the cases (59% of domains disputed)” means? Were there cases in which multiple domains registered by the same entity were targeted? Philip S. Corwin Policy Counsel VeriSign, Inc. 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190 703-948-4648/Direct 571-342-7489/Cell "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: Gnso-rpm-documents [mailto:gnso-rpm-documents-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mary Wong Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2018 11:22 AM To: gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] [Gnso-rpm-documents] FOR REVIEW/INFORMATION: Updated staff compilation report on URS cases Dear all, Staff has updated the 12 June “staff compilation report” document that Berry sent around for agenda item #1 on our last Sub Team all on 13 June (below). Please see attached; note that the current update does not involve changes to any of the data or numbers, which remain as Berry reported them on the call. What we did was to clarify some of the explanatory text around the methodology, and we highlighted the summary of findings so far for easier reading (see the top of Pages 11 & 16). For your convenience, here again is the summary of initial findings for the 827 URS cases decided through end-2017 and as of May 2018: * 28% of the cases (59% of domains disputed) – final domain disposition is “Suspended” . * 27% of the cases (17% of the domains disputed) - domain is no longer registered (most were suspended after the Complainant prevailed). * 30% of the cases (16% of the domains disputed) - Complainant uses brand protection from a provider, a protected marks list, or reserved the name with the Registry * 27% of the cases saw a Response filed to the Complaint * 23% of the cases saw a Response filed within the 14-day period specified in the URS procedure and rules * 13% of the cases with a Response resulted in the claim being denied Staff would like to take this opportunity to once again note that the data on domain disposition reflects the situation as of May 2018, and as such may and likely will change with the passage of time. We hope this report is useful as the Sub Team proceeds to review the original URS Topics Table against the reported data. Thanks and cheers Mary & Berry From: Gnso-rpm-documents <gnso-rpm-documents-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-documents-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of "mail@berrycobb.com<mailto:mail@berrycobb.com>" <mail@berrycobb.com<mailto:mail@berrycobb.com>> Date: Tuesday, June 12, 2018 at 06:26 To: "gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org>" <gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org>> Subject: [Gnso-rpm-documents] Agenda - URS Documents Sub Team Meeting on 13 June 2018, 17:00 UTC Hi All, Please find the proposed agenda for the Documents Sub-team Meeting on 13 June 2018 @ 17:00 UTC: 1. Agenda Bash, SOI updates 2. Continue review of data collection & analysis (attached, Staff compilation report - updated URS data_20180612.pdf) on remaining items identified from Consolidated URS Discussion Document (attached, Consolidated URS Discussion Document - updated 22 March 2018.docx) a. Data on the domain disposition of URS cases – P.11-13 b. Multiple URS cases filed on the same domain – P.14-15 c. URS Case response analysis – P.16** d. Discuss URS Cases where the Respondent prevailed (two drafts extracted from Rebecca’s coding, attached, URS Case Review - ClaimDenied_v0.1.pdf) i. We may have to place this agenda item first, depending on Rebecca’s availability. ii. This item is still very much a draft of something tangible for the sub-team to deliberate on and a direct extract from the coding matrix from Rebecca’s team. iii. Staff looks for additional guidance before resource spend 2. Final Review of Consolidated URS Discussion Document 3. AOB Thank you. B Berry A. Cobb 720.839.5735 mail@berrycobb.com<mailto:mail@berrycobb.com> @berrycobb From: Gnso-rpm-documents [mailto:gnso-rpm-documents-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of BECKHAM, Brian Sent: Monday, June 11, 2018 06:37 To: Julie Hedlund; gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-rpm-documents] URS Documents Sub Team Meeting on 13 June 17:00 UTC Thanks Julie, Do we happen to know if Rebecca will be able to join this June 13 call? I also would like to ask two things: (1) if it is possible for our subteam members to share any thoughts on this list prior to the call, and (2) if anyone could back me up to co-lead or lead the call, as I will be at the ECTA Annual Conference in Greece. Having run through the excel sheet, it seems to largely support the preliminary view of this subteam that the URS generally seemed to working as intended. It also seems that there is a small subset of cases where this is little to no justification by the examiner beyond reciting the URS elements (which is not by itself per se evidence of a failure of the system or the particular case/examiner, and which must be weighed against the URS goals of speed, cost, and the nature of the domain names at issue). All said, this supports the complimentary preliminary view of this subteam that one possible recommendation for the full WG to consider would be some sort of checklist of minimum elements that should be included in URS determinations. Brian From: Gnso-rpm-documents [mailto:gnso-rpm-documents-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Julie Hedlund Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2018 6:04 PM To: gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-documents@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-rpm-documents] URS Documents Sub Team Meeting on 13 June 17:00 UTC Dear all, Please note that per item 2b below a meeting will be scheduled on 13 June at 17:00 UTC for 90 minutes to review through data as identified by the Documents Sub Team where Rebecca's research may assist and additional data as completed by staff (to be sent early next week for the Sub Team review prior to the call). Kind regards, Mary, Ariel, Berry, and Julie From: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>> Date: Tuesday, June 5, 2018 at 10:53 AM To: "gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>> Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] RPM Working Group June Schedule and Work Plan Dear RPM Working Group members, On behalf of the RPM Working Group (WG) Co-Chairs, here is a preview of the work anticipated for June relating to the various data collection exercises with additional details in the attached table: 1. Wednesday, 06 June: No Full Working Group meeting. Instead, the TMCH Data Sub Team will work with the Analysis Group on final questions for registries, registrars, trademark owners, registrants, and potential registrants. A second meeting is scheduled on 07 June if needed. a. Analysis Group will preview the proposed final survey questions to the full WG by 13 June via mailing list b. After pre-testing, Analysis Group launches surveys around 22 June on a rolling basis 2. Wednesday, 13 June: No Full Working Group meeting. Two URS Data Sub Teams will meet to review the research of Prof. Tushnet: a. Providers Sub Team – 12:00 UTC b. Documents Sub Team – 17:00 UTC c. Both will consider how best to use the relevant URS data and will aim to present their recommendations to full WG on 20 June. d. Practitioners Sub Team will receive the Practitioners survey results by 11 June – Staff will assist in setting up a time to meet, review and organize them 12 or 14 June. e. Providers Sub Team should begin to review the Providers survey results on 13 June. 3. Wednesday, 20 June: Full Working Group meeting: Presentations by Providers and Documents Sub Teams about their recommendations for the use of relevant URS data from Prof. Tushnet’s compilation. 4. Panama City ICANN62: Face-to-Face Full WG Meetings (with remote participation): a. Wednesday, 27 June, 10:30 am-Noon (local time) – first RPM WG Meeting: URS Data discussion—Presentation from Practitioners Sub Team re: Survey Results b. Thursday, 28 June, 9:00-10:15 am (local time) – second RPM WG Meeting: URS Data discussion—Presentation from Providers Sub Team re: Survey Results c. Thursday, 28 June, 10:30 am-Noon (local time) – third RPM WG Meeting: Discussion on Procedural Issues Staff have scheduled the meetings with the TMCH Data Sub Team this week, and will be coordinating with the Providers, Practitioners, and Documents URS Sub Teams concerning meetings the week of 11 June. In addition, staff will send to the WG the links to the three ICANN62 sessions (which will include details for remote participation – we expect to be back with Adobe Connect again). Please let us know if you have any questions about these plans. Best regards, Mary, Ariel, Berry, and Julie World Intellectual Property Organization Disclaimer: This electronic message may contain privileged, confidential and copyright protected information. If you have received this e-mail by mistake, please immediately notify the sender and delete this e-mail and all its attachments. Please ensure all e-mail attachments are scanned for viruses prior to opening or using.