Thanks, Amr, Is it possible to see the data and/or contact the tmdb? Sent from my iPad
On 18 May 2017, at 21:13, Amr Elsadr <amr.elsadr@icann.org> wrote:
Hi Paul and all,
For now, as far as the Analysis Group (AG) revised report is concerned, I do not believe that there is a list of domain names abandoned after triggering a Claims Notice. The AG revised report indicated a 94% abandonment rate following Claims Notices, however, this finding was based on an analysis of Claims Service data obtained from the TMDB (IBM), which did not result in a completed domain name registration.
The Claims Service data consisted of which trademarks were downloaded, when the downloads occurred, which registrars downloaded the data, when registrations were completed and the registered domain names for those registrations that were completed (not those that were abandoned).
What the AG also had to do was assume that each trademark downloaded was in fact associated with a domain name registration attempt, although they acknowledged that there was no way for them to be certain of this. If their assumption was incorrect, then the 94% abandonment rate would be exaggerated, and again, there was no way for them to determine the extent to which this might be true. Furthermore, there was no practical way for the AG to be certain that domain name registration attempts that were indeed abandoned following a Claims Notice being triggered, were abandoned because of the Claims Notice. There could have potentially been other reasons why the registration attempts were abandoned (reasons that were unrelated to the Claims Notice).
Apologies if this is not helpful, but it is what we seem to have at this point.
Thanks.
Amr
From: <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of icannlists <icannlists@winston.com> Date: Thursday, May 18, 2017 at 12:09 AM To: Rebecca Tushnet <Rebecca.Tushnet@law.georgetown.edu>, icannlists <icannlists@winston.com> Cc: "gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Data on non exact matches
Thanks Rebecca,
The point I was trying to get at is that even if we are dataless on the false positives from Round 1 (harm to potentially chilled registrants) we aren't dataless on the harm to trademark owners and the consumers they protect. Say we pick a mark and add to it the product terms contained in its statement of services, we can then check that against the URS and UDRP records for new gTLDs to see if they would have triggered a claims notice. So that part, at least, is knowable (although quite the job for anyone trying to dig into the data).
I'm looking forward to Staff's reply on whether or not there is a list of domain names abandoned after claims notice. I'm pretty sure the answer is "no" but let's be safe. If no, then we have to ask should we continue to allow the harms evidence by UDRP & URS decisions just because we forgot to collect data on abandonments following claims, or so we rely on the UDRP & URS analysis to say we need to enhance claims (and then collect the data in the second round to see if the enhanced claims need further tweaking either up or down).
Hopefully, we will hear from Staff soon.
Best, Paul
-----Original Message----- From: Rebecca Tushnet [mailto:Rebecca.Tushnet@law.georgetown.edu] Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2017 5:01 PM To: icannlists <icannlists@winston.com> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Data on non exact matches
Paul, I don't think that the idea that UDRP/URS decisions are relevant evidence is true across the board; even after excluding those with common-law rights only, we'd still have to look at which ones would have gotten a notice if the match process had been in place.
Also, consumers have interests in the websites of legitimate registrants; consumer interests do not line up exactly with trademark owners' interests.
Separately, the percentage of false positives is important to trademark owners too; if 80% of attempts trigger a match notice, that is likely to diminish the deterrent effect--the way we click through a number of other warnings that don't seem particularly targeted to our activity. Rebecca Tushnet Georgetown Law 703 593 6759
On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 5:48 PM, icannlists <icannlists@winston.com> wrote: Thanks Rebecca.
Staff, does the information that Rebecca is seeking in existence? I thought that there was no record of the specific domain names which were non-registered after receiving a notice of claim.
Rebecca, I think your question has more to do with harm to potentially chilled registrants rather than harm to trademark owners/consumers, correct? Harm to trademark owners/consumers can be evidenced by UDRP/URS decisions for domain names that would fall into the next expanded category. Thanks in advance for your thoughts on that.
Best, Paul
-----Original Message----- From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Rebecca Tushnet Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2017 1:36 PM To: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] Data on non exact matches
Reposting per J. Scott's request on the call:
In order to fully evaluate the proposal to extend the match criteria, we really need information on the harm it is supposed to address, including (1) the number of registration attempts that included but were not limited to the text of an entry in the TMCH and (2) the number of such registrations that led to a trademark owner challenge after the fact (therefore excluding URS actions against, for example, typosquatting). To the extent that the proposal becomes more limited to specific goods and services, the evidence of need should be likewise limited. Then, as George K. eloquently explained, we'd also want to see how many attempts/registrations would have been flagged in an expanded match system, to get a sense of the potential for false positives.
Rebecca Tushnet Georgetown Law 703 593 6759 _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
________________________________ The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. If this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author. Any tax advice contained in this email was not intended to be used, and cannot be used, by you (or any other taxpayer) to avoid penalties under applicable tax laws and regulations. _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg