Sorry Greg. I have heard a number of folks mention that there was no abuse. Feel free to comb the record if you prefer. Sorry if you want to deny that deniers exist, but what's the point? Moreover, I can't see how you have any basis to opine, at this point, on how widespread the abuse was. I saw it first hand, but even I would like to see the data about it before characterizing it as really widespread or isolated/relatively rare. I just know that there was abuse. I have been an ardent supporter of the sunrise process, but it really bugs me when folks claim things like a 50% cybersquatting rate or claim that there was no abuse of the TMCH at all. Jon
On Jul 17, 2017, at 10:41 AM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
Jon,
I am saying:
1. I don't believe there was anyone who denied there was any abuse of the TMCH. Viewpoints are polarized enough in the WG; it makes matters worse to portray them as even more polarized than they actually are. This has the secondary problem of "enabling" others to build on these specious claims. Not 3 minutes went by after your email, when George Kirikos leveled the "fake news" allegation at Georges Nehitchevansky that he "repeatedly denied that there was any abuse of the TMCH to begin with." Georges has already stated in this thread that that was not the case, but I guess that was not sufficient for some people.
2. "Widespread" is an incorrect and inappropriate characterization of abuse of the TMCH, so I'm definitely not "arguing on how widespread it was." I would consider abuse to be "isolated" or "relatively rare." Nonetheless, I'm concerned about it, since it harms all the legitimate participants (brandowners, investors, other good-faith potential applicants, etc.) and reduces trust in the system. Of course, it also reduces trust (unnecessarily) when unfounded claims of "widespread" abuse are circulated and then believed by others.
I think that's 'nuff said about that. I prefer to talk about issues, as opposed to talking about how we talk about issues -- but I felt it was sufficiently important to make a plea to accurately represent the facts -- including the positions of the various participants, whether or not one agrees with them. Jon, you are generally a voice of reason and a reasonable voice, so this is not really directed at you. But in this atmosphere, even the most reasonable of us start ratcheting up the rhetoric. I'm not sure where the solutions lie, but I'm fairly sure they do not lie in the direction of more overheated rhetoric.....
Greg
On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 10:14 AM, Jon Nevett <jon@donuts.email <mailto:jon@donuts.email>> wrote: Greg: You could go back and check the record as easily as I could and I have better things to do. If you are saying that no one is denying that there was abuse, but just arguing on how widespread it was, that's fine with me. Jon
On Jul 17, 2017, at 10:03 AM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote:
Jon,
Can you point me to the emails of folks denying that there was any TMCH abuse? Your email was responding to one from Georges, which stated "I think the basis problem has been and remains that the basis for all this hunting around and data requests is an unfounded claim that there is an abundance of “abusive and overreaching tmch registrations.” The evidence of such alleged widespread abuse has not been presented, because it doesn’t exist."
Georges is saying that "alleged widespread abuse" doesn't exist -- not that no abuse exists. I'm not trying to be provocative or nit-picky -- just trying to understand the email "record."
More importantly, I look forward to constructive conversations as well.
Thanks.
Greg
On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 8:15 AM, Jon Nevett <jon@donuts.email <mailto:jon@donuts.email>> wrote: Greg:
Thanks for your analysis. My take from your email is that you were able to poke holes in a few examples of abuse cited by a blogger, but then end up agreeing that there was abuse in some instances, but maybe not in every instance cited. Obviously, these were representative examples and not an exhaustive list. The point of citing the articles was to respond the email posts of the folks denying that there was any such abuse. So now that we have agreement on the not so incredible proposition that there was some speculator abuse of the TMCH/sunrise process, the question among many others is what, if anything, to do about it. I look forward to those constructive conversations.
Best,
Jon
On Jul 17, 2017, at 2:31 AM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote:
The article cited by George Kirikos makes a similar distinction to the one I'm making:
After spending a week analyzing the terms, reviewing the TMCH rules and talking to people on many sides of the domain ecosystem, I’ve come to this conclusion: for the most part, the common words were applied for by well-meaning companies that are only trying to protect their brands. A handful, however, were registered by people trying to game the system.
I think we could get fairly broad agreement that a method to exclude the "gamers" from the TMCH would be worth pursuing. The gamers mentioned in this latter article are discussed in greater detail in this article: http://domainnamewire.com/2014/01/31/donuts-sunrise-data/ <http://domainnamewire.com/2014/01/31/donuts-sunrise-data/>. Interestingly, it appears to be a New gTLD applicant, their holding company and a related party.... So out of the 3 instances of gaming, one set is from a registry (and associated entities), one is from a registrar, and one is from a company with a long history of gaming TLD launches.
Interesting.
What I don't think is going to get broad agreement is a method to exclude "well-meaning companies that are only trying to protect their brands" like Global Media & Entertainment and Galbani from the TMCH, no matter how much nattering and chattering there is about "generic words" etc.
The sooner we move away from throwing around overreaching claims about So Many Bad Things Happening and move toward solving problem we can agree are real problems, the more likely we are to actually accomplish something in the foreseeable future....
Greg
On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 2:14 AM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote: Jon,
The linked articles you provide show the danger of jumping to conclusions about what constitutes an "abuse of the TMCH" and who qualifies as an abuser of the TMCH. Also, what constitutes "plenty" of abuses.
The first article discusses only the sunrise registrations secured by one entity based on their registration of the term THE. The entity, Goallover Limited, seems to be associated with various tools used in buying and maintaining personal data (a/k/a "leads") -- the most prominent being LolaGrove. They seem to have a somewhat legitimate set of businesses, and yet there's no indication they use the word "THE" as a brand in any meaningful way. One would be more shocked if a little more searching didn't reveal that Goallover Limited is not new to this type of scheme. A search reveals the following tidbit from 2006:
Memorex wins in first wave of '.eu' cybersquatting cases <http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/Daily/Detail.aspx?g=e65decb0-3c4d-427f-9...> (Legal updates)
07 September 2006 While the first round of '.eu' domain name decisions were against the '.eu' registry, trademark owners are now successfully challenging cybersquatters. In Memorex Products Europe Limited v Goallover Limited, the panel was faced with a respondent who had registered the trademark MEMO REX the day before it applied for the domain name 'memorex.eu <http://memorex.eu/>', and had 132 similar sunrise applications.
This does appear to be a form of "TMCH abuse," but its hard to discern what makes their claim to trademark rights bona fide.
The second article casts a wider net. Unfortunately, it captures legitimate brandowners along with likely abusers.
The first one, HOSTING, was registered by a domain name registrar and hosting provider called Hosting Concepts BV, which appears to do business as Openprovider (see, e.g., www.openprovider.com <http://www.openprovider.com/>). On their LinkedIn page they state "Since july 1st 2012 the only brand of Hosting Concepts is: Openprovider: https://www.openprovider.nl <https://www.openprovider.nl/> https://www.openprovider.co.uk <https://www.openprovider.co.uk/> https://www.openprovider.es <https://www.openprovider.es/>" It might be interesting to know how they use HOSTING as a trademark (which they claim is for rubber and plastic products (of unknown type), but not for their actual business, which is hosting). As an apparently legitimate registrar and hosting provider business, it does raise concerns that they appear to have a side-business in filing questionable trademark applications.
The second one, GOLD, is a horse of a different color. The owner, This is Global Limited (now known as Global Media & Entertainment Limited) is a UK based media company (http://www.global.com/ <http://www.global.com/>) which identifies itself as the UK's largest commercial radio business -- one of their "formats", with a number of radio stations operating under the mark, is called GOLD (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_(radio) <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_(radio)> or http://www.global.com/radio/gold/ <http://www.global.com/radio/gold/>) It's subtitled "Greatest Hits of All Time," and appears to be an "oldies" format. They filed for the trademark back in 2009 (UK00002515362). This is an entirely legitimate trademark and use, being unfairly accused of "TMCH abuse."
The next one "biG" is also a "false positive" for "TMCH abuse." biG is a trademark of S.p.A. Egidio Galbani, a large Italian cheesemaker, with sales in numerous countries, doing business as Gruppo Lactalis. Their website http://www.gruppolactalisitalia.com/locator.cfm?sectionid=974 <http://www.gruppolactalisitalia.com/locator.cfm?sectionid=974> reveals the following about the business carried out under this mark:
biG: Una grande società per una grande distribuzione biG Srl è la società nata nel 2004 per la distribuzione e vendita di tutti i prodotti Galbani in Italia. È caratterizzata dal più capillare network di distribuzione di prodotti freschi su tutto nel nostro Paese con 1.130 tra venditori e agenti,oltre 1.000 camioncini e 108 depositi territoriali.
Dal 2009 si occupa di tutto il portafoglio prodotti del Gruppo Lactalis Italia (tutti i marchi Galbani, Vallelata, Invernizzi, Locatelli, Cademartori, Président) per garantirne una gestione integrata e sinergica ed una maggiore efficienza e sviluppo nei diversi Canali di Vendita. Il mercato dei formaggi in Italia rappresenta infatti il 1° a valore nel reparto del fresco e garantisce il maggior contributo alla crescita di fatturato dei vari punti vendita.
which, courtesy of Google Translate, says something like this:
biG: A great company for a large distribution
biG Srl is the company formed in 2004 for the distribution and sale of all Galbani products in Italy . It is characterized by the most extensive distribution network of fresh produce throughout our country by 1130 between sellers and agents, more than 1,000 trucks and 108 local deposits.
Since 2009 deals with all the Group's product portfolio Lactalis Italy (all Galbani brands, Vallelata, Invernizzi, Locatelli, Cademartori, Président) to ensure an integrated and synergic management and greater efficiency and development in various Sales Channels. The cheese market in Italy represents the 1st value in the fresh department and ensures the greatest contribution to growth in sales of the various sales outlets.
Again, an entirely legitimate trademark and trademark owner being tarred by false charges of "TMCH abuse."
The fourth and last mark cited is the infamous THE registered by the infamous GOALLOVER LIMITED.
So, the "plenty" of TMCH abuses adds up to one attempt by a registrar and hosting provider to claim the mark HOSTING, one attempt by a serial "gamer" to claim the mark THE, one false accusation against a brandowner for GOLD for a bona fide radio station business and one false accusation against a brandowner for biG for a bona fide food distribution business.
Even more concerning is that these claims are thrown out there and then adopted and further transmitted by people who I sincerely believe are trying to have an informed good-faith discussion about their concerns. Nonetheless, it took me less than an hour to discern that half of the "plenty" of instances were false. That makes it harder than it should be to discuss these concerns in a productive way.
We need to strive for a discussion and a solution that is aimed at actors like OpenProvider and Goallover, which appear to be clear instances of "gaming" rather than bona fide uses of the marks, while not pulling in legitimate brands and brandowners like Global Media & Entertainment and Galbani.
I agree that there is a challenge in creating the right filter that would separate the wheat from the chaff. But that doesn't mean it can't be done.
Greg
On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 10:25 AM, Jon Nevett <jon@donuts.email <mailto:jon@donuts.email>> wrote: Georges: Denying that there were abuses of the TMCH won't help either. There have been plenty presented to date (see below). Let's try to solve the problems and not deny that they exist. Obviously, there is some abandonment based on the notices -- let's work to minimize the rate of abandonment by legitimate registrants without unduly hurting the protections afforded to legitimate rights holders. Jon
https://www.thedomains.com/2017/02/01/the-trademark-clearinghouse-worked-so-... <https://www.thedomains.com/2017/02/01/the-trademark-clearinghouse-worked-so-...>
https://www.thedomains.com/2014/03/22/tmch-has-plenty-of-trademarks-of-gener... <https://www.thedomains.com/2014/03/22/tmch-has-plenty-of-trademarks-of-gener...>
On Jul 13, 2017, at 9:37 AM, Nahitchevansky, Georges <ghn@kilpatricktownsend.com <mailto:ghn@kilpatricktownsend.com>> wrote:
I think the basis problem has been and remains that the basis for all this hunting around and data requests is an unfounded claim that there is an abundance of “ <>abusive and overreaching tmch registrations.” The evidence of such alleged widespread abuse has not been presented, because it doesn’t exist. What all this sound and fury about data etc. reminds me of is Donald Trump claiming with basically no evidence that there was widespread voter fraud to explain why he do not get the majority of the popular vote in the US and then setting up a special commission to investigate the matter in the hope of cobbling together some sort of proof. In the end it’s a waste of everybody’s time and money.
From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Paul Keating Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2017 9:23 AM To: Kurt Pritz Cc: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Inferences (was Re: Mp3, Attendance, AC recording & AC Chat Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) PDP Working Group)
Well i want to do a short review here.
The issue. Is the tmch function resulting in overkill - in other words is it overly protecting mark holders at the expense of the public.
1st many were asking for a list of marks registered with the tmch. The point here was to understand what type of marks were actually being registered and under what conditions.
This was met with loud objections by a few members who asserted confidentiality. I seem to recall that the tmch agreement itself contradicted any assertion of confidentiality. I suggested the list be made known without indication of registrant identification. I also suggested the list be provided to a 3rd party under confidentiality so they could report to the group. There was no vote or attempt to measure consensus.
2nd we then considered the post-notice abandonment rate. This was a 2nd best data source trying to figure out the same original issue.
Now it turns out that the data set was not stellar. People are not asserting this should be abandoned. This argument is being made by the same small group that objected to release of the marks registered with TMCH.
Now the suggestion is to abandon any investigation into what is in TMCH or the statistical abandonment rate and instead look at the language of the notice itself. This does not solve the problem. It is simply unacceptable to allow abusive and overreaching tmch registrations just because the notice can be watered down or improved.
The problem remains. In order to measure the success or appropriateness of the TMCH (which this group is required to do) we must have access to the underlying data.
I remain willing to work with people to provide reasonable protection for confidentiality. I reiterate my suggestions that the data be anonymized or provided to a neutral expert to review, categorize and report on.
If this is not acceptable, then the only alternative is for someone to essentially reverse engineer the list by trial and error. This can certainly be done on an automated basis. However, neither side would win by this. It would be a silly waste of time and resources. It would also result in publication of the results. It seems neither side would want such a result. I am sure we can find a compromise.
Anyone willing to work on this with me?
Sent from my iPad
On 13 Jul 2017, at 12:22, Kurt Pritz <kurt@kjpritz.com <mailto:kurt@kjpritz.com>> wrote:
I agree with Susan.
I think the Analysis Group was at least negligent in their duties when they reported the 93% abandonment rate. It was misleading despite the disclaimers attached. Whenever any number is reported, it tends to gain traction and, as a result, we find ourselves struggling to attach some type of meaning to it. The Analysis report has led to false conclusions and a waste of time.
We are best off never mentioning the number again. We should agree that we have no understanding, information or data on the issue of how abandonment rate was effected by claims notices.
George has identified a couple ways to approximate the effect. If additional data gathering is undertaken along the lines that George or anyone else suggests, that work would be to get an understanding of abandonment rates and not to test the reported number by Analysis.
Susan’s last and penultimate paragraphs below put it best. In addition to identifying data be collected in the next round, we could look at the language and display of the current notices to ensure that the notices are designed to achieve the goal of the claims notice program: to properly inform without intimidating.
Kurt
________________
Kurt Pritz
kurt@kjpritz.com <mailto:kurt@kjpritz.com> +1.310.400.4184 <tel:(310)%20400-4184> Skype: kjpritz
On Jul 13, 2017, at 10:28 AM, Susan Payne <susan.payne@valideus.com <mailto:susan.payne@valideus.com>> wrote:
Correct, the data for two registrars was excluded because of concerns about mining, but Analysis Group clearly were not confident that fully addressed the concern:
Page 7:
"However, due to limitations of the data (discussed in more detail below), our analyses of the data require an assumption that each download is associated with a registration attempt (and was not downloaded by a registrar for a purpose unrelated to domain name registrations). If this assumption is incorrect, then our results will exaggerate the size of any observable registration-deterrent Claims Service effect."
Page 16:
"These results should not be relied upon to make policy recommendations. We find that the vast majority of registration attempts are not completed after receiving a Claims Service notification (94% abandonment rate). This abandonment rate seems quite high, however there are several caveats to this result, which include our inability to determine the abandonment rate that would occur if no Claims Service notifications were sent and limitations of our data set, which require us to assume that every registrar download from the TMDB represents a registration attempt.54 We therefore cannot determine whether Claims Service notifications are the direct cause for the abandonment rate that we observe."
I believe this is a fruitless exercise. Analysis Group are meant to be professionals at this, were paid a tidy sum by ICANN to carry out this review, presumably had the benefit of being an independent third party which ought to have removed some of the confidentiality concerns that we have faced, and should have had the support of whatever ICANN contractual provisions there are requiring co-operation in economic studies. They still produced a report which repeatedly cites the paucity of data, the resulting reliance on assumptions, and that their “results” were consequently inadequate and should not be relied upon to make policy.
We are wasting our time with this. What would not be a waste of time would be to identify the data that we wish we had and make recommendations such that any future review would not be similarly hampered.
Susan Payne
Head of Legal Policy | Valideus Ltd
E: susan.payne@valideus.com <mailto:susan.payne@valideus.com> D: +44 20 7421 8255 <tel:+44%2020%207421%208255> T: +44 20 7421 8299 <tel:+44%2020%207421%208299> M: +44 7971 661175 <tel:+44%207971%20661175>
-----Original Message----- From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of George Kirikos Sent: 12 July 2017 21:30 To: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Inferences (was Re: Mp3, Attendance, AC recording & AC Chat Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) PDP Working Group)
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... <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 <tel:(416)%20588-0269> http://www.leap.com/ <http://www.leap.com/>
On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 4:10 PM, George Kirikos <icann@leap.com <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <tel:(416)%20588-0269> http://www.leap.com/ <http://www.leap.com/> _______________________________________________
gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg>
gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg> _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg>
_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg>
Confidentiality Notice: This communication constitutes an electronic communication within the meaning of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 2510, and its disclosure is strictly limited to the recipient intended by the sender of this message. This transmission, and any attachments, may contain confidential attorney-client privileged information and attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. Please contact us immediately by return e-mail or at 404 815 6500 <tel:(404)%20815-6500>, and destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading or saving in any manner.
***DISCLAIMER*** Per Treasury Department Circular 230: Any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein. _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg>
_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg>