That's a solid idea Brian. Commission an independent research firm to do a study. That would be good at looking at different potential wordings of the notice. We should try to get the registrars to provide actual data as well. Best, Jon
On Jun 9, 2017, at 10:45 AM, Brian F. Cimbolic <BCimbolic@pir.org> wrote:
Thanks J. Scott and understood. That being said, it seems that a running commentary from both sides of this issue is that there is no direct evidence supporting either position. Could this PDP be in a position to remedy that by asking ICANN to commission a survey/study to try to cut to the heart of the matter? Perhaps the survey could examine abandonment rates and registrant responses to receipt of the Claims notice. This is obviously in the "spitballing" phase of an idea, but it seems the only way to get over the hump on this issue is to have some objective source for all sides to look to.
Thanks.
Brian Cimbolic Deputy General Counsel, Public Interest Registry Office: +1 703 889-5752| Mobile: + 1 571 385-7871| www.pir.org | Facebook | Twitter | Instagram | YouTube
Confidentiality Note: Proprietary and confidential to Public Interest Registry. If received in error, please inform sender and then delete.
-----Original Message----- From: J. Scott Evans [mailto:jsevans@adobe.com] Sent: Friday, June 09, 2017 10:28 AM To: Brian F. Cimbolic <BCimbolic@pir.org>; Rebecca Tushnet <Rebecca.Tushnet@law.georgetown.edu>; Beckham, Brian <brian.beckham@wipo.int> Cc: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] TMCH data on abandonment
Brain. Point taken. I don’t mean to be flippant. That said, I am growing increasing tired of there always being a negative inference from behaviors from those that are overall hostile to RPMs in general. My point is that as a proponent of RPMs and someone who worked diligently for over 9 months to come up with these RPMs that the abandonment rate does not automatically indicate that the system is not working as intended.
J. Scott Evans 408.536.5336 (tel) 345 Park Avenue, Mail Stop W11-544 Director, Trademarks 408.709.6162 (cell) San Jose, CA, 95110, USA Adobe. Make It an Experience. jsevans@adobe.com www.adobe.com
On 6/9/17, 7:24 AM, "Brian F. Cimbolic" <BCimbolic@pir.org> wrote:
J. Scott, respectfully, what evidence is there that the Claims notice provided to registrants is not having a chilling effect for those with no intention to infringe? I understand there is not direct evidence on either side of the issue, but to say decisively that it is "Not so" about the chilling effect without providing some evidence seems unnecessarily flippant.
Brian Cimbolic Deputy General Counsel, Public Interest Registry Office: +1 703 889-5752| Mobile: + 1 571 385-7871| https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=www.pir.org&data=02%7C01%... | Facebook | Twitter | Instagram | YouTube
Confidentiality Note: Proprietary and confidential to Public Interest Registry. If received in error, please inform sender and then delete.
-----Original Message----- From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of J. Scott Evans via gnso-rpm-wg Sent: Friday, June 09, 2017 10:19 AM To: Rebecca Tushnet <Rebecca.Tushnet@law.georgetown.edu>; Beckham, Brian <brian.beckham@wipo.int> Cc: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] TMCH data on abandonment Importance: High
I will remind the group that Abandonment is the point. The TM Claims notice is designed to inform would-be innocent infringers that there is an issue. A high abandonment rate show that the system is working. I realize those hostile to the TM Claims feel that a high abandonment rate is proof that the Claims notice is overreaching. Not so.
J. Scott
J. Scott Evans 408.536.5336 (tel) 345 Park Avenue, Mail Stop W11-544 Director, Trademarks 408.709.6162 (cell) San Jose, CA, 95110, USA Adobe. Make It an Experience. jsevans@adobe.com www.adobe.com
On 6/9/17, 7:16 AM, "gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Rebecca Tushnet" <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Rebecca.Tushnet@law.georgetown.edu> wrote:
I agree with Paul K. Unfortunately, we need better information than that--we need to know about, of attempts that reached the stage at which a notice would be provided, how many were abandoned. It's my understanding--though I'd be happy to learn more--that the notice wouldn't come when the shopping cart was filled but at checkout.
If we just don't have the data, then it may be that our only recommendation must be to get the data. Rebecca Tushnet Georgetown Law 703 593 6759
On Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 4:56 AM, Beckham, Brian <brian.beckham@wipo.int> wrote:
Dear all,
I’m not sure what is the right venue (i.e., in the sub-group, of which I am not a member, or to the full WG) to offer this, and it is offered merely to help fill out some of the questions/discussion around seeking various TMCH/Claims-related data.
In the transcript for the Sub Team for Trademark Claims call on Friday, 02 June 2017 at 16:00 UTC, there was some discussion on abandonment rates. In summary: Rebeca Tushnet suggested it would be helpful to compare non-TMCH-related abandonment vs “regular” abandonment. Jeff Neuman recalled that during the BIZ launch there was a high abandonment. Phil Corwin suggested that if the non-TMCH-related abandonment rate was 80% then it may be reasonable to conclude that there’s not a material difference between those subject to claims notices.
Mindful that it may be difficult or even impossible to obtain the desired data (a number of reasons, including competitive (dis-)advantages, were raised on the call), a recent GoDaddy post informs us that “An average website loses 69 percent of sales to abandoned carts.” A second GoDaddy article suggests it is 67%.
See https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.godaddy... and
https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.godaddy....
There are many articles on this topic with varying figures, but they tended to generally note abandonment rates upwards of 60%.
The takeaway is that the TMCH-Claims rates observed here in the WG, while different/higher, are arguably not materially different than e-commerce statistics generally (certainly not the 20% noted by Phil Corwin as signaling “a significant difference in the completion of registration.”).
It is important here to recall too that many members of the WG have noted that (for a number of reasons) registries, registrars, and registrants may have been sending queries in large numbers, thus skewing the data upwards.
Best regards,
Brian
Brian Beckham | Head, Internet Dispute Resolution Section | WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center 34 chemin des Colombettes, 1211 Geneva 20, Switzerland | T +4122 338 8247 | E brian.beckham@wipo.int | https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=www.wipo.int&data=02%7C01...
_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.or... _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.or...
_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.or...
_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg