Hi again, Just to followup on my prior email, The Analysis Group *already* adjusted the stats to attempt to take into account the "mining" theory that Jeff spoke about. i.e. the 93.7% abandonment figure that we've been talking about is a figure obtained *after* making the adjustments! Without the adjustment (which eliminated 62.2% of the observations), the abandonment rate would have been 99%! See: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/64066042/Analysis%20Group%2... (a) page 17 (footnote 55) ""As discussed in Section IV, there are two registrars that averaged downloads of more than 20 trademark strings per download, which is large compared to the average of fewer than five trademark strings in the downloads of other registrars. We also exclude downloads made by ICANN’s monitoring system. The exclusion of the two registrars does not significantly impact our results. Inclusion of the two registrars shows that 99% of registrations are abandoned and 0.5% of completed registrations are disputed." (b) page 18, note [2] "[2] A bulk download is defined as a download from the TMCH of multiple strings by the same registrar with exactly the same time stamp. Downloads by two registrars are excluded from this analysis because of a potentially high prevalence of bulk downloads (98.7% and 81.9% of downloads, respectively) by each of these two registrars. The average size of the “bulk downloads” by these two registrars (approximately 23 and 35 strings, respectively) is much larger than the average “bulk download” size of other registrars (other registrars in the Claims Service data download 5 strings or less on average). This exclusion results in an exclusion of 62.2% of the observations in the original Claims Service data received from IBM after excluding downloads by ICANN's monitoring system." Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 4:10 PM, George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote:
Hi folks,
Just following up on some statements from today's transcript:
On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 3:51 PM, Terri Agnew <terri.agnew@icann.org> wrote:
Adobe Connect chat transcript for 12 July 2017: ... Jeff Neuman:My belief is that we have a huge rate of people abandoning is because (i) registrars were mining the system, (ii) registrants were mining the system to see what was valuable, and to a lesser extent as a result of the claim (either legitimiate or not)
Jeff Neuman:But I cant prove any of those theories
Kathy Kleiman:@Jeff: we have gathered evidence already from registries; there is probably more
Jeff Neuman:There just is no way to do so on a backwards basis
If one had access to the raw data (and presumably The Analysis Group would have had it, to generate their reports), one could filter such "mining" by examining abandonment rates by (1) registrar and (2) by time relative to the launch date.
i.e. presumably those were "mining" the system were not spreading out their queries across all registrars equally. It would be easy to identify the outliers. Furthermore, registrants would be also focused on a few registrars that permit those bulk lookups, and they wouldn't spread their queries over time equally --- they'd be focused at the launch (i.e. the beginning, first few days, etc.) of a TLD.
Of course, if need be, one could anonymize the data by registrar (i.e. Registrar 1, Registrar 2, etc.), if there are any concerns about revealing their individual abandonment rates.
Registry operators and registrars both have technology to block WHOIS access to those who are "mining" that data. One can use similar detection techniques in this instance.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg