Hello and welcome, Kurt! Thanks so much for the questions – we’re not quite at the Sunrise and Claims stage of data gathering yet (but will get there) so I’ll note the questions you raised for now. The call on Friday will be fairly basic in comparison, in that we’ll be focused just on the TMCH as a mechanism, and discussing with Greg Rafert of the Analysis Group the challenges, gaps and recommended data sources they used for their independent review. In that regard I’ll be sure to bring up your last question as to other data and sources. I expect that the more broad questions you’ve suggested will be covered when the full WG meets with Greg, which I hope to confirm soon as well.

 

Thanks again, and please keep the contributions coming!

 

Cheers

Mary

 

From: <gnso-rpm-tmch-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of "kurt@kjpritz.com" <kurt@kjpritz.com>
Date: Wednesday, July 27, 2016 at 19:15
To: "gnso-rpm-tmch@icann.org" <gnso-rpm-tmch@icann.org>
Subject: [Gnso-rpm-tmch] Questions for Data Analysis

 

Hi Everyone:

 

My name is Kurt Pritz and, if it acceptable to everyone, I'll join the group even though it is a bit late. For those that don't know me, I worked with ICANN for several years including time concentrating on the development of the new gTLD Program and Rights Protection Mechanisms in particular. I enjoy and have experience in statistics and measurement and so thought I might be helpful to this group. 

 

Having said that, i have a competing call this Friday that I cannot postpone and so will only be on and off the call. 

 

I've prepared a few questions that we might consider for our session with Data Analysis staff. I thought I would start out with some general ones and then get to a few specifics on the study. Let me know what you think.

 

Questions are below, best regards,

 

Kurt

__________________

Kurt Pritz

+1-310-400-4184

kurt@kjpritz.com

Skype: kjpritz

 

TMCH Data Analysis Questions

Now that you have essentially completed the work: what new metrics do you think should be employed to gauge the effectiveness of Sunrise, Claims and the current definition of exact match?

What do you think of the idea of the TMCH as an institution to protect rights?

In the Claims section of the report,

  • you find that: 93.7 percent of all claims service downloads were associated with an "abandoned registration." You seem to say that this is not an accurate measure (i.e., it is ridiculously high) of how many registrations are discouraged by the claims notice and that there are other reasons for the downloads besides Claims notices. Is that a correct characterization? What data must be made available and by whom to determine the percentage of registrations that are actually dropped due to the Claims notice?
  • The apparent inaccuracy of the 93.7% finding also puts in doubt the veracity of the statement, "6.3% of registration attempts that trigger a Claims Service notification complete the registration process." Is that correct?
  • Only 0.3% of registered names that received a Claims notice and were registered were later disputed through the URS or UDRP. What data is required to affirmatively state whether this is an unexpectedly low number and determine why.

What data is required (and from whom) to determine why Sunrise registrations are relatively few in number?

Is it a valid conclusion that the study seems to say "no" to each of the GAC questions, i.e., whether to: 

  • extend the period of the Clearinghouse notifications beyond 90 days
  • extend the operation of the Clearinghouse notifications to potential registrants for the life of each new registry; and
  • expand the TMCH matching criteria to include key terms associated with the goods or services identified by the mark, and typographical variations identified by the rights holder.

What other data should be collected and from whom (TMCH database, TMCH validator, registrars, registries, other)s?