This thread has wound on quite a bit since Brian's original post, but since my name came up in his let me add a few thoughts. Brian's email stated: > 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... > 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%. I haven’t reviewed the transcript of that call, but I just pulled the 80% number out of a hat and my intended point was that if there was just a small difference between abandonment rates of initiated domain registrations that did and did not generate claims notices then it might be reasonable to conclude that the received warning was having its intended targeted effect (deterring cybersquatting) and not causing significant abandonment of non-infringing domain registrations. It appears that the GoDaddy cart abandonment statistics relate to general ecommerce websites and not specifically to registrar websites so it would be useful to get data from registrars as to what their general cart abandonment rate is. But if it is 68% for initiated domain registrations then the 94.7 abandonment rate measured by the Analysis group would be 39.2% higher and that would seem statistically significant and indicative that non-infringing registrations may be deterred. (Noting for the record that we don't know how many of the abandoned registrations measured by AG were never intended to go to completion but were initiated for other purposes -- and that of the abandoned attempts that were intended to be completed we have no way of knowing which were initiated by intentional cybersquatters and which came from innocent parties with no infringing intent and whose actual domain use would not have been infringing.) We also don't know the effect of a claims warning receipt on an intentional cybersquatters versus innocent would-be registrants. Just as warning signs of home security systems may not deter a professional burglar, intentional cybersquatters may know the risk of detection and factor it into their business model. On the other hand, outside the ICANN bubble, most would be domain registrants are unlikely to have a law degree and upon receiving a notice warning of potential legal consequences if they complete the transaction may decide they don't wish to expend half a month's grocery money to consult with a trademark attorney. None of this is to say that the Claims Notice does not have merit or that we should not consider possible generation of notices, or at least notice to trademark holders of completed registrations, for some classes of non-exact matches. But it's clear that we also need more and better data because what we don't know probably exceeds what we do. We should also be mindful that we must maintain a reasonable balance between the scope of this RPM and its impact on domain registrants with no infringing intent, especially if their actual use of the domain would be lawful. Let's take a pragmatic view and recognize that any policymaking exercise is not an academic but an inherently political process and that "politics is the art of compromise". Also, as contracted parties in the business of creating and selling domains make up half the GNSO Council that must approve our final work product (lest all our work be for naught) that would suggest that our work should seek to assure that Claims Notices perform their intended effect of effectively deterring intended cybersquatting while minimizing the deterrence of legitimate domain registrations. Best, Philip Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/Cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey -----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 11:00 AM To: Volker Greimann; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] TMCH data on abandonment Volker: Thanks for this perspective. I know that my marketing team struggles with what they call “stickiness” of a registration process. Specifically, they are always looking for ways to streamline the registration process because the “stickier” the process (the more steps need to complete registration) leads to a high drop off rate. Your antidotal evidence certainly aligns with the same type of situation my folks at Adobe find difficult in selling our subscriptions. 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, 7:52 AM, "gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Volker Greimann" <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org on behalf of vgreimann@key-systems.net> wrote: There can be a significant drop-off due the necessity to present this notice seperate from the purchase process. Examples: 1) Potential Registrant pre-orders a domain: the notice cannot be presented at the time of purchase 2) Potential Registrant orders the domain through a reseller with its own front-end: the notice cannot be presented by the registrar in the purchase process Result => Notice has to be presented after the order is received but before it is executed in an alternate process, usually email. While we have not at the time measured the actual rate, we did note a significant drop-off between the numbers of registrants directed to visit a website where the notice could be presented and confirmed and the number of mails sent. The drop-off between the number of customers visiting the site, seeing the notice and then deciding not to pursue the registration was smaller. Conclusion: The current noticeconfirmation process that is supposed to be in the registration path does not work well in real life for many industry sales channel. Best, Volker Am 09.06.2017 um 16:28 schrieb J. Scott Evans via gnso-rpm-wg: > 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://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.or... -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net Web: https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=www.key-systems.net&data=... / https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=www.RRPproxy.net&data=02%... https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=www.domaindiscount24.com&... / https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=www.BrandShelter.com&data... Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=www.facebook.com%2FKeySys... https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=www.twitter.com%2Fkey_sys... Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=www.keydrive.lu&data=02%7... Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net Web: https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=www.key-systems.net&data=... / https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=www.RRPproxy.net&data=02%... https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=www.domaindiscount24.com&... / https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=www.BrandShelter.com&data... Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=www.facebook.com%2FKeySys... https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=www.twitter.com%2Fkey_sys... CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=www.keydrive.lu&data=02%7... This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone. _______________________________________________ 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