Agenda and documents for RPM Working Group call on Wednesday 6 September 2017
Dear all, The proposed agenda for our next Working Group call, coming up today at 1700 UTC, is as follows: 1. Roll call (via Adobe Connect and phone bridge only); updates to Statements of Interest 2. Review draft GNSO Council data collection request (including suggested prioritization levels from the Working Group co-chairs) 3. Next steps/next meeting For agenda item #2, the following documents are attached: * A draft request to the GNSO Council, in the form prescribed by the GNSO Operating Procedures, outlining the request, the rationale for the request, an initial estimated budget and list of possible sources, as well as attachments detailing the Charter questions and data collection tasks being contemplated. * A Google Doc showing all the various data collection tasks identified to date (as noted in Attachment 2 to the draft request form described above), where the Working Group co-chairs have noted a preferred prioritization level to each task. The staff understanding is that we will be focusing on a review of the Google Doc on the call. Thanks and cheers Mary
I have a conflicting call with a client, so I will miss at least the first part of the call. Please accept my apologies. Greg On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 12:21 AM, Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org> wrote:
Dear all,
The proposed agenda for our next Working Group call, coming up today at 1700 UTC, is as follows:
1. Roll call (via Adobe Connect and phone bridge only); updates to Statements of Interest 2. Review draft GNSO Council data collection request (including suggested prioritization levels from the Working Group co-chairs) 3. Next steps/next meeting
For agenda item #2, the following documents are attached:
- A draft request to the GNSO Council, in the form prescribed by the GNSO Operating Procedures, outlining the request, the rationale for the request, an initial estimated budget and list of possible sources, as well as attachments detailing the Charter questions and data collection tasks being contemplated.
- A Google Doc showing all the various data collection tasks identified to date (as noted in Attachment 2 to the draft request form described above), where the Working Group co-chairs have noted a preferred prioritization level to each task.
The staff understanding is that we will be focusing on a review of the Google Doc on the call.
Thanks and cheers
Mary
_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
For the collection of data regarding the URS/UDRP cases, it doesn't appear that any data is being collected regarding how many domains were registered in the same periods that *didn't* generate URS/UDRP complaints. That was an essential point, which was already raised previously (and appeared in a previous document), in order to ensure that it is a relative measurement (not an absolute one). Also, when the data is being compiled for URS/UDRP complaints, it appears it's only checking whether the domain name was registered within a TMCH claims period. It should be broken down into even more detail, i.e. was the name registered in (a) landrush period (i.e. post-sunrise) with TMCH claims notice, (b) GA period with TMCH claims notices (i.e. post landrush), or (c) GA period without TMCH claims notices. If it turns out that the rate of cybersquatting in the landrush period was low, that supports the argument that the sunrise period can be eliminated without major harmful effects. On the other hand, if it turns out that the rate of cybersquatting in the landrush period was too high, that might argue for the retention of sunrises. When pulling down WHOIS records, be careful to ensure that the domain hasn't been deleted and re-registered (might require use of historical WHOIS, e.g. from DomainTools.com). With regards to "expanded match", it is going to be prohibitively expensive, in my opinion, relative to the other questions we're tasked with, since it basically requires building nearly the full system in question to test it with the historical data, etc. I've already pointed out the huge number of expanded terms generated by each rule, in a past email. Greg (or someone else) should generate all the relevant matches manually for a subset of common terms, e.g. taken from the Top 500 most commonly requested terms we've been waiting for from The Analysis Group), and those expanded matches should be evaluated by the working group, before hundreds of thousands of dollars, or even millions of dollars, are invested to build out the actual system being proposed. There's a point in #8 (Contractors) about "ICANN staff to work with Deloitte and/or IBM to obtain aggregated, anonymized statistics demonstrating percentage of disputed domains that were registered in Sunrise and that generated a Claims Notice." That doesn't make sense to me --- in order to register in Sunrise, didn't one *need* to be a TM owner that had also purchased a recordal in the TMCH?? Under point #12 (middle column), it says "Compilation of all URS cases" -- shouldn't that have also included UDRP cases (for new gTLD domains), to match point #7, which measured both? Generally, the data requests appear to be unbalanced, in that they are more focused on evaluating all possible harms of cybersquatting (e.g. "all form of consumer harm" in one point) in order to justify retention of the RPMs, while not balancing that out by looking for *all* data that could document the possible benefits of elimination of the RPMs in question (including, but not limited to, points I've already raised that are not reflected in the current draft data requests). Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 12:21 AM, Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org> wrote:
Dear all,
The proposed agenda for our next Working Group call, coming up today at 1700 UTC, is as follows:
Roll call (via Adobe Connect and phone bridge only); updates to Statements of Interest Review draft GNSO Council data collection request (including suggested prioritization levels from the Working Group co-chairs) Next steps/next meeting
For agenda item #2, the following documents are attached:
A draft request to the GNSO Council, in the form prescribed by the GNSO Operating Procedures, outlining the request, the rationale for the request, an initial estimated budget and list of possible sources, as well as attachments detailing the Charter questions and data collection tasks being contemplated.
A Google Doc showing all the various data collection tasks identified to date (as noted in Attachment 2 to the draft request form described above), where the Working Group co-chairs have noted a preferred prioritization level to each task.
The staff understanding is that we will be focusing on a review of the Google Doc on the call.
Thanks and cheers
Mary
_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
George, Often UDRP cases are not initiated for several years after the abusive registration of the domain. In many cases, this adds the additional burden on the trademark owner to monitor the domain for evidence of bad faith for an extended period of time. In your view, how should this factor be reflected in the statistics? Also, at any point in time the level of cybersquatting in a TLD does not directly correspond to the number of UDRP cases for the reason stated above, and because of other issues related to addressing abusive registrations such as: 1) enforcement demand letters, 2) claims brought under national law, 3) suspensions by the registrar or registry (in the case of phishing), or 4) no action is taken because the trademark owner is not aware of and/or does not have the resources to pursue all abusive registrations. How do you think these factors should be calculated into the equation? Best, Claudio On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 8:02 AM George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote:
For the collection of data regarding the URS/UDRP cases, it doesn't appear that any data is being collected regarding how many domains were registered in the same periods that *didn't* generate URS/UDRP complaints. That was an essential point, which was already raised previously (and appeared in a previous document), in order to ensure that it is a relative measurement (not an absolute one).
Also, when the data is being compiled for URS/UDRP complaints, it appears it's only checking whether the domain name was registered within a TMCH claims period. It should be broken down into even more detail, i.e. was the name registered in (a) landrush period (i.e. post-sunrise) with TMCH claims notice, (b) GA period with TMCH claims notices (i.e. post landrush), or (c) GA period without TMCH claims notices. If it turns out that the rate of cybersquatting in the landrush period was low, that supports the argument that the sunrise period can be eliminated without major harmful effects. On the other hand, if it turns out that the rate of cybersquatting in the landrush period was too high, that might argue for the retention of sunrises.
When pulling down WHOIS records, be careful to ensure that the domain hasn't been deleted and re-registered (might require use of historical WHOIS, e.g. from DomainTools.com).
With regards to "expanded match", it is going to be prohibitively expensive, in my opinion, relative to the other questions we're tasked with, since it basically requires building nearly the full system in question to test it with the historical data, etc. I've already pointed out the huge number of expanded terms generated by each rule, in a past email. Greg (or someone else) should generate all the relevant matches manually for a subset of common terms, e.g. taken from the Top 500 most commonly requested terms we've been waiting for from The Analysis Group), and those expanded matches should be evaluated by the working group, before hundreds of thousands of dollars, or even millions of dollars, are invested to build out the actual system being proposed.
There's a point in #8 (Contractors) about "ICANN staff to work with Deloitte and/or IBM to obtain aggregated, anonymized statistics demonstrating percentage of disputed domains that were registered in Sunrise and that generated a Claims Notice." That doesn't make sense to me --- in order to register in Sunrise, didn't one *need* to be a TM owner that had also purchased a recordal in the TMCH??
Under point #12 (middle column), it says "Compilation of all URS cases" -- shouldn't that have also included UDRP cases (for new gTLD domains), to match point #7, which measured both?
Generally, the data requests appear to be unbalanced, in that they are more focused on evaluating all possible harms of cybersquatting (e.g. "all form of consumer harm" in one point) in order to justify retention of the RPMs, while not balancing that out by looking for *all* data that could document the possible benefits of elimination of the RPMs in question (including, but not limited to, points I've already raised that are not reflected in the current draft data requests).
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 12:21 AM, Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org> wrote:
Dear all,
The proposed agenda for our next Working Group call, coming up today at 1700 UTC, is as follows:
Roll call (via Adobe Connect and phone bridge only); updates to Statements of Interest Review draft GNSO Council data collection request (including suggested prioritization levels from the Working Group co-chairs) Next steps/next meeting
For agenda item #2, the following documents are attached:
A draft request to the GNSO Council, in the form prescribed by the GNSO Operating Procedures, outlining the request, the rationale for the request, an initial estimated budget and list of possible sources, as well as attachments detailing the Charter questions and data collection tasks being contemplated.
A Google Doc showing all the various data collection tasks identified to date (as noted in Attachment 2 to the draft request form described above), where the Working Group co-chairs have noted a preferred prioritization level to each task.
The staff understanding is that we will be focusing on a review of the Google Doc on the call.
Thanks and cheers
Mary
_______________________________________________ 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
Claudio: We're just discussing collecting data for this call. Without the data to analyze, we can't come to the appropriate conclusions. If you believe that "Claims Brought Under National Law", and "Suspensions" should also be added to the data collection, as long as they're TM related, you won't find disagreement from me. I believe "enforcement demand letters" are already in the data collection (C&D letters?)? As for "no action is taken", that seems to imply the damage from alleged abuse is so minor that it's not affecting the company, and/or is minimal/non-existent. If you believe there's a dataset available for "no action is taken", please propose one. There are of course differences between the UDRP and URS. I would think that the UDRP cases are the more serious infringements (higher cost to pursue, but also greater "reward", namely the transfer of the domain). Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 11:56 AM, claudio di gangi <ipcdigangi@gmail.com> wrote:
George,
Often UDRP cases are not initiated for several years after the abusive registration of the domain. In many cases, this adds the additional burden on the trademark owner to monitor the domain for evidence of bad faith for an extended period of time. In your view, how should this factor be reflected in the statistics?
Also, at any point in time the level of cybersquatting in a TLD does not directly correspond to the number of UDRP cases for the reason stated above, and because of other issues related to addressing abusive registrations such as: 1) enforcement demand letters, 2) claims brought under national law, 3) suspensions by the registrar or registry (in the case of phishing), or 4) no action is taken because the trademark owner is not aware of and/or does not have the resources to pursue all abusive registrations. How do you think these factors should be calculated into the equation?
Best, Claudio
On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 8:02 AM George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote:
For the collection of data regarding the URS/UDRP cases, it doesn't appear that any data is being collected regarding how many domains were registered in the same periods that *didn't* generate URS/UDRP complaints. That was an essential point, which was already raised previously (and appeared in a previous document), in order to ensure that it is a relative measurement (not an absolute one).
Also, when the data is being compiled for URS/UDRP complaints, it appears it's only checking whether the domain name was registered within a TMCH claims period. It should be broken down into even more detail, i.e. was the name registered in (a) landrush period (i.e. post-sunrise) with TMCH claims notice, (b) GA period with TMCH claims notices (i.e. post landrush), or (c) GA period without TMCH claims notices. If it turns out that the rate of cybersquatting in the landrush period was low, that supports the argument that the sunrise period can be eliminated without major harmful effects. On the other hand, if it turns out that the rate of cybersquatting in the landrush period was too high, that might argue for the retention of sunrises.
When pulling down WHOIS records, be careful to ensure that the domain hasn't been deleted and re-registered (might require use of historical WHOIS, e.g. from DomainTools.com).
With regards to "expanded match", it is going to be prohibitively expensive, in my opinion, relative to the other questions we're tasked with, since it basically requires building nearly the full system in question to test it with the historical data, etc. I've already pointed out the huge number of expanded terms generated by each rule, in a past email. Greg (or someone else) should generate all the relevant matches manually for a subset of common terms, e.g. taken from the Top 500 most commonly requested terms we've been waiting for from The Analysis Group), and those expanded matches should be evaluated by the working group, before hundreds of thousands of dollars, or even millions of dollars, are invested to build out the actual system being proposed.
There's a point in #8 (Contractors) about "ICANN staff to work with Deloitte and/or IBM to obtain aggregated, anonymized statistics demonstrating percentage of disputed domains that were registered in Sunrise and that generated a Claims Notice." That doesn't make sense to me --- in order to register in Sunrise, didn't one *need* to be a TM owner that had also purchased a recordal in the TMCH??
Under point #12 (middle column), it says "Compilation of all URS cases" -- shouldn't that have also included UDRP cases (for new gTLD domains), to match point #7, which measured both?
Generally, the data requests appear to be unbalanced, in that they are more focused on evaluating all possible harms of cybersquatting (e.g. "all form of consumer harm" in one point) in order to justify retention of the RPMs, while not balancing that out by looking for *all* data that could document the possible benefits of elimination of the RPMs in question (including, but not limited to, points I've already raised that are not reflected in the current draft data requests).
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 12:21 AM, Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org> wrote:
Dear all,
The proposed agenda for our next Working Group call, coming up today at 1700 UTC, is as follows:
Roll call (via Adobe Connect and phone bridge only); updates to Statements of Interest Review draft GNSO Council data collection request (including suggested prioritization levels from the Working Group co-chairs) Next steps/next meeting
For agenda item #2, the following documents are attached:
A draft request to the GNSO Council, in the form prescribed by the GNSO Operating Procedures, outlining the request, the rationale for the request, an initial estimated budget and list of possible sources, as well as attachments detailing the Charter questions and data collection tasks being contemplated.
A Google Doc showing all the various data collection tasks identified to date (as noted in Attachment 2 to the draft request form described above), where the Working Group co-chairs have noted a preferred prioritization level to each task.
The staff understanding is that we will be focusing on a review of the Google Doc on the call.
Thanks and cheers
Mary
_______________________________________________ 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
George you were the one jumping to conclusions: for example " If it turns out that the rate of cybersquatting in the landrush period was low, that supports the argument that the sunrise period can be eliminated without major harmful effects". Which frankly is not even worth responding to. Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy | Valideus Ltd E: susan.payne@valideus.com D: +44 20 7421 8255 T: +44 20 7421 8299 M: +44 7971 661175 -----Original Message----- From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of George Kirikos Sent: 06 September 2017 17:08 To: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Agenda and documents for RPM Working Group call on Wednesday 6 September 2017 Claudio: We're just discussing collecting data for this call. Without the data to analyze, we can't come to the appropriate conclusions. If you believe that "Claims Brought Under National Law", and "Suspensions" should also be added to the data collection, as long as they're TM related, you won't find disagreement from me. I believe "enforcement demand letters" are already in the data collection (C&D letters?)? As for "no action is taken", that seems to imply the damage from alleged abuse is so minor that it's not affecting the company, and/or is minimal/non-existent. If you believe there's a dataset available for "no action is taken", please propose one. There are of course differences between the UDRP and URS. I would think that the UDRP cases are the more serious infringements (higher cost to pursue, but also greater "reward", namely the transfer of the domain). Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 11:56 AM, claudio di gangi <ipcdigangi@gmail.com> wrote:
George,
Often UDRP cases are not initiated for several years after the abusive registration of the domain. In many cases, this adds the additional burden on the trademark owner to monitor the domain for evidence of bad faith for an extended period of time. In your view, how should this factor be reflected in the statistics?
Also, at any point in time the level of cybersquatting in a TLD does not directly correspond to the number of UDRP cases for the reason stated above, and because of other issues related to addressing abusive registrations such as: 1) enforcement demand letters, 2) claims brought under national law, 3) suspensions by the registrar or registry (in the case of phishing), or 4) no action is taken because the trademark owner is not aware of and/or does not have the resources to pursue all abusive registrations. How do you think these factors should be calculated into the equation?
Best, Claudio
On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 8:02 AM George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote:
For the collection of data regarding the URS/UDRP cases, it doesn't appear that any data is being collected regarding how many domains were registered in the same periods that *didn't* generate URS/UDRP complaints. That was an essential point, which was already raised previously (and appeared in a previous document), in order to ensure that it is a relative measurement (not an absolute one).
Also, when the data is being compiled for URS/UDRP complaints, it appears it's only checking whether the domain name was registered within a TMCH claims period. It should be broken down into even more detail, i.e. was the name registered in (a) landrush period (i.e. post-sunrise) with TMCH claims notice, (b) GA period with TMCH claims notices (i.e. post landrush), or (c) GA period without TMCH claims notices. If it turns out that the rate of cybersquatting in the landrush period was low, that supports the argument that the sunrise period can be eliminated without major harmful effects. On the other hand, if it turns out that the rate of cybersquatting in the landrush period was too high, that might argue for the retention of sunrises.
When pulling down WHOIS records, be careful to ensure that the domain hasn't been deleted and re-registered (might require use of historical WHOIS, e.g. from DomainTools.com).
With regards to "expanded match", it is going to be prohibitively expensive, in my opinion, relative to the other questions we're tasked with, since it basically requires building nearly the full system in question to test it with the historical data, etc. I've already pointed out the huge number of expanded terms generated by each rule, in a past email. Greg (or someone else) should generate all the relevant matches manually for a subset of common terms, e.g. taken from the Top 500 most commonly requested terms we've been waiting for from The Analysis Group), and those expanded matches should be evaluated by the working group, before hundreds of thousands of dollars, or even millions of dollars, are invested to build out the actual system being proposed.
There's a point in #8 (Contractors) about "ICANN staff to work with Deloitte and/or IBM to obtain aggregated, anonymized statistics demonstrating percentage of disputed domains that were registered in Sunrise and that generated a Claims Notice." That doesn't make sense to me --- in order to register in Sunrise, didn't one *need* to be a TM owner that had also purchased a recordal in the TMCH??
Under point #12 (middle column), it says "Compilation of all URS cases" -- shouldn't that have also included UDRP cases (for new gTLD domains), to match point #7, which measured both?
Generally, the data requests appear to be unbalanced, in that they are more focused on evaluating all possible harms of cybersquatting (e.g. "all form of consumer harm" in one point) in order to justify retention of the RPMs, while not balancing that out by looking for *all* data that could document the possible benefits of elimination of the RPMs in question (including, but not limited to, points I've already raised that are not reflected in the current draft data requests).
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 12:21 AM, Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org> wrote:
Dear all,
The proposed agenda for our next Working Group call, coming up today at 1700 UTC, is as follows:
Roll call (via Adobe Connect and phone bridge only); updates to Statements of Interest Review draft GNSO Council data collection request (including suggested prioritization levels from the Working Group co-chairs) Next steps/next meeting
For agenda item #2, the following documents are attached:
A draft request to the GNSO Council, in the form prescribed by the GNSO Operating Procedures, outlining the request, the rationale for the request, an initial estimated budget and list of possible sources, as well as attachments detailing the Charter questions and data collection tasks being contemplated.
A Google Doc showing all the various data collection tasks identified to date (as noted in Attachment 2 to the draft request form described above), where the Working Group co-chairs have noted a preferred prioritization level to each task.
The staff understanding is that we will be focusing on a review of the Google Doc on the call.
Thanks and cheers
Mary
_______________________________________________ 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
gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
Susan wrote: On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 12:45 PM, Susan Payne <susan.payne@valideus.com> wrote:
George you were the one jumping to conclusions: for example " If it turns out that the rate of cybersquatting in the landrush period was low, that supports the argument that the sunrise period can be eliminated without major harmful effects". Which frankly is not even worth responding to.
(1) Then why are you responding? (2) That's a misleading snippet of what I actually wrote, namely: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2017-September/002485.html "If it turns out that the rate of cybersquatting in the landrush period was low, that supports the argument that the sunrise period can be eliminated without major harmful effects. On the other hand, if it turns out that the rate of cybersquatting in the landrush period was too high, that might argue for the retention of sunrises." which was not jumping to *any* conclusions, since it allowed for either possibility. i.e. see the 2nd sentence that begins "On the other hand....". Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
George, Just to clarify one point, "No action taken" can be due to: 1) TM owner is not yet aware of the abusive registration; 2) a satisfactory level of bad faith evidence (cybersquatter has not yet sent extortion demand or related factors) is not yet present; 3) the TM owner has to prioritize which abusive registrations to pursue, and is unable to pursue this particular registration due to lack of resources. None of these factors necessarily implies the damage from the abusive registration is small, as to suggest it shouldn't count in the assessment. As described above, in some cases, the damage may be great, but the TM owner is not yet aware of the harm. In other cases, the full extent of the damages have not yet accrued. It's certainly possible that in an individual case considered in isolation, the extent of damages may be less than the cost to bring the dispute (several thousands of dollars) and maintain the domain in perpetuity (on the basis it is to be transferred). But even in those cases, the impact is a net loss, and when you consider the impact of these net losses in the aggregate - on the basis there may be hundreds or thousands of such registrations for a particular mark, the collective impact of such registrations can be quite significant. Yet, in the example cited to above ("No action taken"), none of these harms and costs are captured by simply counting the number of UDRP/URS cases. Therefore, I don't believe counting the number of cases serves as adequate grounds to suggest a finding that Sunrise should be eliminated because there are simply too many other variables at play that are relevant that do not get captured in this analysis. Best, Claudio On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 12:08 PM George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote:
Claudio: We're just discussing collecting data for this call. Without the data to analyze, we can't come to the appropriate conclusions.
If you believe that "Claims Brought Under National Law", and "Suspensions" should also be added to the data collection, as long as they're TM related, you won't find disagreement from me. I believe "enforcement demand letters" are already in the data collection (C&D letters?)?
As for "no action is taken", that seems to imply the damage from alleged abuse is so minor that it's not affecting the company, and/or is minimal/non-existent. If you believe there's a dataset available for "no action is taken", please propose one.
There are of course differences between the UDRP and URS. I would think that the UDRP cases are the more serious infringements (higher cost to pursue, but also greater "reward", namely the transfer of the domain).
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
George,
Often UDRP cases are not initiated for several years after the abusive registration of the domain. In many cases, this adds the additional burden on the trademark owner to monitor the domain for evidence of bad faith for an extended period of time. In your view, how should this factor be reflected in the statistics?
Also, at any point in time the level of cybersquatting in a TLD does not directly correspond to the number of UDRP cases for the reason stated above, and because of other issues related to addressing abusive registrations such as: 1) enforcement demand letters, 2) claims brought under national law,
suspensions by the registrar or registry (in the case of phishing), or
On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 11:56 AM, claudio di gangi <ipcdigangi@gmail.com> wrote: 3) 4) no
action is taken because the trademark owner is not aware of and/or does not have the resources to pursue all abusive registrations. How do you think these factors should be calculated into the equation?
Best, Claudio
On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 8:02 AM George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote:
For the collection of data regarding the URS/UDRP cases, it doesn't appear that any data is being collected regarding how many domains were registered in the same periods that *didn't* generate URS/UDRP complaints. That was an essential point, which was already raised previously (and appeared in a previous document), in order to ensure that it is a relative measurement (not an absolute one).
Also, when the data is being compiled for URS/UDRP complaints, it appears it's only checking whether the domain name was registered within a TMCH claims period. It should be broken down into even more detail, i.e. was the name registered in (a) landrush period (i.e. post-sunrise) with TMCH claims notice, (b) GA period with TMCH claims notices (i.e. post landrush), or (c) GA period without TMCH claims notices. If it turns out that the rate of cybersquatting in the landrush period was low, that supports the argument that the sunrise period can be eliminated without major harmful effects. On the other hand, if it turns out that the rate of cybersquatting in the landrush period was too high, that might argue for the retention of sunrises.
When pulling down WHOIS records, be careful to ensure that the domain hasn't been deleted and re-registered (might require use of historical WHOIS, e.g. from DomainTools.com).
With regards to "expanded match", it is going to be prohibitively expensive, in my opinion, relative to the other questions we're tasked with, since it basically requires building nearly the full system in question to test it with the historical data, etc. I've already pointed out the huge number of expanded terms generated by each rule, in a past email. Greg (or someone else) should generate all the relevant matches manually for a subset of common terms, e.g. taken from the Top 500 most commonly requested terms we've been waiting for from The Analysis Group), and those expanded matches should be evaluated by the working group, before hundreds of thousands of dollars, or even millions of dollars, are invested to build out the actual system being proposed.
There's a point in #8 (Contractors) about "ICANN staff to work with Deloitte and/or IBM to obtain aggregated, anonymized statistics demonstrating percentage of disputed domains that were registered in Sunrise and that generated a Claims Notice." That doesn't make sense to me --- in order to register in Sunrise, didn't one *need* to be a TM owner that had also purchased a recordal in the TMCH??
Under point #12 (middle column), it says "Compilation of all URS cases" -- shouldn't that have also included UDRP cases (for new gTLD domains), to match point #7, which measured both?
Generally, the data requests appear to be unbalanced, in that they are more focused on evaluating all possible harms of cybersquatting (e.g. "all form of consumer harm" in one point) in order to justify retention of the RPMs, while not balancing that out by looking for *all* data that could document the possible benefits of elimination of the RPMs in question (including, but not limited to, points I've already raised that are not reflected in the current draft data requests).
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 12:21 AM, Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org> wrote:
Dear all,
The proposed agenda for our next Working Group call, coming up today
at
1700 UTC, is as follows:
Roll call (via Adobe Connect and phone bridge only); updates to Statements of Interest Review draft GNSO Council data collection request (including suggested prioritization levels from the Working Group co-chairs) Next steps/next meeting
For agenda item #2, the following documents are attached:
A draft request to the GNSO Council, in the form prescribed by the GNSO Operating Procedures, outlining the request, the rationale for the request, an initial estimated budget and list of possible sources, as well as attachments detailing the Charter questions and data collection tasks being contemplated.
A Google Doc showing all the various data collection tasks identified to date (as noted in Attachment 2 to the draft request form described above), where the Working Group co-chairs have noted a preferred prioritization level to each task.
The staff understanding is that we will be focusing on a review of the Google Doc on the call.
Thanks and cheers
Mary
_______________________________________________ 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
gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
Claudio: But, all those "other variables at play" that don't get measured also exist in .com/net/org and other legacy gTLDs that didn't have those RPMs. So, one would ultimately compare what is measurable in both groups. e.g. if those additional RPMs reduced "measurable" cybersquatting by 80%, that would be a huge improvement/benefit that would help support an argument for their retention (although, one would also need to weigh costs). If it turns out that isn't the case, it would be much harder to assert that the balance is tipped by all that can't be measured. By the way, to the extent that multiple complainants are able to get together to file complaints as a group (against a single respondent), to overcome some of the cost challenges through sharing, whether it be in the UDRP/URS or in the courts, I'm 100% for that. That's something outside our group's mandate, but perhaps it'll trigger ideas of members that they can use outside the group (e.g. via private forums on INTA, or other venues). One might recall the case of NBA basketball player Chris Bosh: http://www.winston.com/en/thought-leadership/winston-strawn-secures-award-of... who recovered nearly 800 domain names corresponding to famous athletes and celebrities (which were presumably ultimately reassigned to the appropriate people). Remember the Verizon/iREIT case, when the complaint would list examples of alleged cybersquatting for each letter of the alphabet? http://www.loffs.org/verizon-vs-ireit/ (see Exhibit 5) There could have been 26+ co-complainants, to take down that entire company (fortunately, Verizon was able to achieve success on their own, without cost sharing). Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 3:58 PM, claudio di gangi <ipcdigangi@gmail.com> wrote:
George,
Just to clarify one point, "No action taken" can be due to: 1) TM owner is not yet aware of the abusive registration; 2) a satisfactory level of bad faith evidence (cybersquatter has not yet sent extortion demand or related factors) is not yet present; 3) the TM owner has to prioritize which abusive registrations to pursue, and is unable to pursue this particular registration due to lack of resources.
None of these factors necessarily implies the damage from the abusive registration is small, as to suggest it shouldn't count in the assessment.
As described above, in some cases, the damage may be great, but the TM owner is not yet aware of the harm. In other cases, the full extent of the damages have not yet accrued.
It's certainly possible that in an individual case considered in isolation, the extent of damages may be less than the cost to bring the dispute (several thousands of dollars) and maintain the domain in perpetuity (on the basis it is to be transferred).
But even in those cases, the impact is a net loss, and when you consider the impact of these net losses in the aggregate - on the basis there may be hundreds or thousands of such registrations for a particular mark, the collective impact of such registrations can be quite significant.
Yet, in the example cited to above ("No action taken"), none of these harms and costs are captured by simply counting the number of UDRP/URS cases.
Therefore, I don't believe counting the number of cases serves as adequate grounds to suggest a finding that Sunrise should be eliminated because there are simply too many other variables at play that are relevant that do not get captured in this analysis.
Best, Claudio
On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 12:08 PM George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote:
Claudio: We're just discussing collecting data for this call. Without the data to analyze, we can't come to the appropriate conclusions.
If you believe that "Claims Brought Under National Law", and "Suspensions" should also be added to the data collection, as long as they're TM related, you won't find disagreement from me. I believe "enforcement demand letters" are already in the data collection (C&D letters?)?
As for "no action is taken", that seems to imply the damage from alleged abuse is so minor that it's not affecting the company, and/or is minimal/non-existent. If you believe there's a dataset available for "no action is taken", please propose one.
There are of course differences between the UDRP and URS. I would think that the UDRP cases are the more serious infringements (higher cost to pursue, but also greater "reward", namely the transfer of the domain).
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 11:56 AM, claudio di gangi <ipcdigangi@gmail.com> wrote:
George,
Often UDRP cases are not initiated for several years after the abusive registration of the domain. In many cases, this adds the additional burden on the trademark owner to monitor the domain for evidence of bad faith for an extended period of time. In your view, how should this factor be reflected in the statistics?
Also, at any point in time the level of cybersquatting in a TLD does not directly correspond to the number of UDRP cases for the reason stated above, and because of other issues related to addressing abusive registrations such as: 1) enforcement demand letters, 2) claims brought under national law, 3) suspensions by the registrar or registry (in the case of phishing), or 4) no action is taken because the trademark owner is not aware of and/or does not have the resources to pursue all abusive registrations. How do you think these factors should be calculated into the equation?
Best, Claudio
On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 8:02 AM George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote:
For the collection of data regarding the URS/UDRP cases, it doesn't appear that any data is being collected regarding how many domains were registered in the same periods that *didn't* generate URS/UDRP complaints. That was an essential point, which was already raised previously (and appeared in a previous document), in order to ensure that it is a relative measurement (not an absolute one).
Also, when the data is being compiled for URS/UDRP complaints, it appears it's only checking whether the domain name was registered within a TMCH claims period. It should be broken down into even more detail, i.e. was the name registered in (a) landrush period (i.e. post-sunrise) with TMCH claims notice, (b) GA period with TMCH claims notices (i.e. post landrush), or (c) GA period without TMCH claims notices. If it turns out that the rate of cybersquatting in the landrush period was low, that supports the argument that the sunrise period can be eliminated without major harmful effects. On the other hand, if it turns out that the rate of cybersquatting in the landrush period was too high, that might argue for the retention of sunrises.
When pulling down WHOIS records, be careful to ensure that the domain hasn't been deleted and re-registered (might require use of historical WHOIS, e.g. from DomainTools.com).
With regards to "expanded match", it is going to be prohibitively expensive, in my opinion, relative to the other questions we're tasked with, since it basically requires building nearly the full system in question to test it with the historical data, etc. I've already pointed out the huge number of expanded terms generated by each rule, in a past email. Greg (or someone else) should generate all the relevant matches manually for a subset of common terms, e.g. taken from the Top 500 most commonly requested terms we've been waiting for from The Analysis Group), and those expanded matches should be evaluated by the working group, before hundreds of thousands of dollars, or even millions of dollars, are invested to build out the actual system being proposed.
There's a point in #8 (Contractors) about "ICANN staff to work with Deloitte and/or IBM to obtain aggregated, anonymized statistics demonstrating percentage of disputed domains that were registered in Sunrise and that generated a Claims Notice." That doesn't make sense to me --- in order to register in Sunrise, didn't one *need* to be a TM owner that had also purchased a recordal in the TMCH??
Under point #12 (middle column), it says "Compilation of all URS cases" -- shouldn't that have also included UDRP cases (for new gTLD domains), to match point #7, which measured both?
Generally, the data requests appear to be unbalanced, in that they are more focused on evaluating all possible harms of cybersquatting (e.g. "all form of consumer harm" in one point) in order to justify retention of the RPMs, while not balancing that out by looking for *all* data that could document the possible benefits of elimination of the RPMs in question (including, but not limited to, points I've already raised that are not reflected in the current draft data requests).
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 12:21 AM, Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org> wrote:
Dear all,
The proposed agenda for our next Working Group call, coming up today at 1700 UTC, is as follows:
Roll call (via Adobe Connect and phone bridge only); updates to Statements of Interest Review draft GNSO Council data collection request (including suggested prioritization levels from the Working Group co-chairs) Next steps/next meeting
For agenda item #2, the following documents are attached:
A draft request to the GNSO Council, in the form prescribed by the GNSO Operating Procedures, outlining the request, the rationale for the request, an initial estimated budget and list of possible sources, as well as attachments detailing the Charter questions and data collection tasks being contemplated.
A Google Doc showing all the various data collection tasks identified to date (as noted in Attachment 2 to the draft request form described above), where the Working Group co-chairs have noted a preferred prioritization level to each task.
The staff understanding is that we will be focusing on a review of the Google Doc on the call.
Thanks and cheers
Mary
_______________________________________________ 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
gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
+1 Claudio I would also add that there also many litigations that are filed concerning domain names which this numbers approach will not pick up. The reality is that there are cybersquatting situations that have, at times, been addressed without having to file the UDRP. The point is that the level of cybersquatting is not simply captured by the UDRP. Pursuing this sort of numbers approach is in my view an incorrect way of proceeding. It is like saying that if only 0.5% of the world’s population catches an infectious disease it is not a problem and no money should be spent on vaccine search and the like (notwithstanding that the cost of caring for the infected can be staggering). The approach doesn’t account for the full brunt of cybersquatting, the massive costs involved to brand owners and ultimately consumers etc.. This kind of approach is not helpful or useful in a review of the sunrise and claims RPMs and is certainly significantly less probative evidence than the answers of the 30 or more respondents to the INTA survey. Georges Nahitchevansky Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP The Grace Building | 1114 Avenue of the Americas | New York, NY 10036-7703 office 212 775 8720 | fax 212 775 8820 ghn@kilpatricktownsend.com<mailto:ghn@kilpatricktownsend.com> | My Profile<http://www.kilpatricktownsend.com/en/Who%20We%20Are/Professionals/N/Nahitche...> | vCard<http://www.kilpatricktownsend.com/_assets/vcards/professionals/Nahitchevansk...> From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of claudio di gangi Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2017 11:56 AM To: George Kirikos; Mary Wong Cc: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Agenda and documents for RPM Working Group call on Wednesday 6 September 2017 George, Often UDRP cases are not initiated for several years after the abusive registration of the domain. In many cases, this adds the additional burden on the trademark owner to monitor the domain for evidence of bad faith for an extended period of time. In your view, how should this factor be reflected in the statistics? Also, at any point in time the level of cybersquatting in a TLD does not directly correspond to the number of UDRP cases for the reason stated above, and because of other issues related to addressing abusive registrations such as: 1) enforcement demand letters, 2) claims brought under national law, 3) suspensions by the registrar or registry (in the case of phishing), or 4) no action is taken because the trademark owner is not aware of and/or does not have the resources to pursue all abusive registrations. How do you think these factors should be calculated into the equation? Best, Claudio On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 8:02 AM George Kirikos <icann@leap.com<mailto:icann@leap.com>> wrote: For the collection of data regarding the URS/UDRP cases, it doesn't appear that any data is being collected regarding how many domains were registered in the same periods that *didn't* generate URS/UDRP complaints. That was an essential point, which was already raised previously (and appeared in a previous document), in order to ensure that it is a relative measurement (not an absolute one). Also, when the data is being compiled for URS/UDRP complaints, it appears it's only checking whether the domain name was registered within a TMCH claims period. It should be broken down into even more detail, i.e. was the name registered in (a) landrush period (i.e. post-sunrise) with TMCH claims notice, (b) GA period with TMCH claims notices (i.e. post landrush), or (c) GA period without TMCH claims notices. If it turns out that the rate of cybersquatting in the landrush period was low, that supports the argument that the sunrise period can be eliminated without major harmful effects. On the other hand, if it turns out that the rate of cybersquatting in the landrush period was too high, that might argue for the retention of sunrises. When pulling down WHOIS records, be careful to ensure that the domain hasn't been deleted and re-registered (might require use of historical WHOIS, e.g. from DomainTools.com). With regards to "expanded match", it is going to be prohibitively expensive, in my opinion, relative to the other questions we're tasked with, since it basically requires building nearly the full system in question to test it with the historical data, etc. I've already pointed out the huge number of expanded terms generated by each rule, in a past email. Greg (or someone else) should generate all the relevant matches manually for a subset of common terms, e.g. taken from the Top 500 most commonly requested terms we've been waiting for from The Analysis Group), and those expanded matches should be evaluated by the working group, before hundreds of thousands of dollars, or even millions of dollars, are invested to build out the actual system being proposed. There's a point in #8 (Contractors) about "ICANN staff to work with Deloitte and/or IBM to obtain aggregated, anonymized statistics demonstrating percentage of disputed domains that were registered in Sunrise and that generated a Claims Notice." That doesn't make sense to me --- in order to register in Sunrise, didn't one *need* to be a TM owner that had also purchased a recordal in the TMCH?? Under point #12 (middle column), it says "Compilation of all URS cases" -- shouldn't that have also included UDRP cases (for new gTLD domains), to match point #7, which measured both? Generally, the data requests appear to be unbalanced, in that they are more focused on evaluating all possible harms of cybersquatting (e.g. "all form of consumer harm" in one point) in order to justify retention of the RPMs, while not balancing that out by looking for *all* data that could document the possible benefits of elimination of the RPMs in question (including, but not limited to, points I've already raised that are not reflected in the current draft data requests). Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 12:21 AM, Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>> wrote:
Dear all,
The proposed agenda for our next Working Group call, coming up today at 1700 UTC, is as follows:
Roll call (via Adobe Connect and phone bridge only); updates to Statements of Interest Review draft GNSO Council data collection request (including suggested prioritization levels from the Working Group co-chairs) Next steps/next meeting
For agenda item #2, the following documents are attached:
A draft request to the GNSO Council, in the form prescribed by the GNSO Operating Procedures, outlining the request, the rationale for the request, an initial estimated budget and list of possible sources, as well as attachments detailing the Charter questions and data collection tasks being contemplated.
A Google Doc showing all the various data collection tasks identified to date (as noted in Attachment 2 to the draft request form described above), where the Working Group co-chairs have noted a preferred prioritization level to each task.
The staff understanding is that we will be focusing on a review of the Google Doc on the call.
Thanks and cheers
Mary
_______________________________________________ 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
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 ________________________________ 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, 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.
Ultimately we want to get to the amount of cybersquatting -- all of these are just fractions of the total. Anyone who's ever looked at a search report for online brand protection purposes knows that we are just talking about the tip of the iceberg here. We should not fool ourselves that it's all peaches and cream out there, aside from UDRP cases, or UDRP plus the other dispute tools mentioned above. That would be like saying that the amount of speeding on a highway was equal to the amount of speeding tickets issued. Greg On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 12:10 PM, Nahitchevansky, Georges < ghn@kilpatricktownsend.com> wrote:
+1 Claudio I would also add that there also many litigations that are filed concerning domain names which this numbers approach will not pick up. The reality is that there are cybersquatting situations that have, at times, been addressed without having to file the UDRP. The point is that the level of cybersquatting is not simply captured by the UDRP. Pursuing this sort of numbers approach is in my view an incorrect way of proceeding. It is like saying that if only 0.5% of the world’s population catches an infectious disease it is not a problem and no money should be spent on vaccine search and the like (notwithstanding that the cost of caring for the infected can be staggering). The approach doesn’t account for the full brunt of cybersquatting, the massive costs involved to brand owners and ultimately consumers etc.. This kind of approach is not helpful or useful in a review of the sunrise and claims RPMs and is certainly significantly less probative evidence than the answers of the 30 or more respondents to the INTA survey.
*Georges Nahitchevansky * *Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP* The Grace Building | 1114 Avenue of the Americas | New York, NY 10036-7703 office 212 775 8720 <(212)%20775-8720> | fax 212 775 8820 <(212)%20775-8820> ghn@kilpatricktownsend.com | My Profile <http://www.kilpatricktownsend.com/en/Who%20We%20Are/Professionals/N/Nahitche...> | vCard <http://www.kilpatricktownsend.com/_assets/vcards/professionals/Nahitchevansk...>
*From:* gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@ icann.org] *On Behalf Of *claudio di gangi *Sent:* Wednesday, September 06, 2017 11:56 AM *To:* George Kirikos; Mary Wong *Cc:* gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Agenda and documents for RPM Working Group call on Wednesday 6 September 2017
George,
Often UDRP cases are not initiated for several years after the abusive registration of the domain. In many cases, this adds the additional burden on the trademark owner to monitor the domain for evidence of bad faith for an extended period of time. In your view, how should this factor be reflected in the statistics?
Also, at any point in time the level of cybersquatting in a TLD does not directly correspond to the number of UDRP cases for the reason stated above, and because of other issues related to addressing abusive registrations such as: 1) enforcement demand letters, 2) claims brought under national law, 3) suspensions by the registrar or registry (in the case of phishing), or 4) no action is taken because the trademark owner is not aware of and/or does not have the resources to pursue all abusive registrations. How do you think these factors should be calculated into the equation?
Best,
Claudio
On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 8:02 AM George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote:
For the collection of data regarding the URS/UDRP cases, it doesn't appear that any data is being collected regarding how many domains were registered in the same periods that *didn't* generate URS/UDRP complaints. That was an essential point, which was already raised previously (and appeared in a previous document), in order to ensure that it is a relative measurement (not an absolute one).
Also, when the data is being compiled for URS/UDRP complaints, it appears it's only checking whether the domain name was registered within a TMCH claims period. It should be broken down into even more detail, i.e. was the name registered in (a) landrush period (i.e. post-sunrise) with TMCH claims notice, (b) GA period with TMCH claims notices (i.e. post landrush), or (c) GA period without TMCH claims notices. If it turns out that the rate of cybersquatting in the landrush period was low, that supports the argument that the sunrise period can be eliminated without major harmful effects. On the other hand, if it turns out that the rate of cybersquatting in the landrush period was too high, that might argue for the retention of sunrises.
When pulling down WHOIS records, be careful to ensure that the domain hasn't been deleted and re-registered (might require use of historical WHOIS, e.g. from DomainTools.com).
With regards to "expanded match", it is going to be prohibitively expensive, in my opinion, relative to the other questions we're tasked with, since it basically requires building nearly the full system in question to test it with the historical data, etc. I've already pointed out the huge number of expanded terms generated by each rule, in a past email. Greg (or someone else) should generate all the relevant matches manually for a subset of common terms, e.g. taken from the Top 500 most commonly requested terms we've been waiting for from The Analysis Group), and those expanded matches should be evaluated by the working group, before hundreds of thousands of dollars, or even millions of dollars, are invested to build out the actual system being proposed.
There's a point in #8 (Contractors) about "ICANN staff to work with Deloitte and/or IBM to obtain aggregated, anonymized statistics demonstrating percentage of disputed domains that were registered in Sunrise and that generated a Claims Notice." That doesn't make sense to me --- in order to register in Sunrise, didn't one *need* to be a TM owner that had also purchased a recordal in the TMCH??
Under point #12 (middle column), it says "Compilation of all URS cases" -- shouldn't that have also included UDRP cases (for new gTLD domains), to match point #7, which measured both?
Generally, the data requests appear to be unbalanced, in that they are more focused on evaluating all possible harms of cybersquatting (e.g. "all form of consumer harm" in one point) in order to justify retention of the RPMs, while not balancing that out by looking for *all* data that could document the possible benefits of elimination of the RPMs in question (including, but not limited to, points I've already raised that are not reflected in the current draft data requests).
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 <(416)%20588-0269> http://www.leap.com/
On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 12:21 AM, Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org> wrote:
Dear all,
The proposed agenda for our next Working Group call, coming up today at 1700 UTC, is as follows:
Roll call (via Adobe Connect and phone bridge only); updates to Statements of Interest Review draft GNSO Council data collection request (including suggested prioritization levels from the Working Group co-chairs) Next steps/next meeting
For agenda item #2, the following documents are attached:
A draft request to the GNSO Council, in the form prescribed by the GNSO Operating Procedures, outlining the request, the rationale for the request, an initial estimated budget and list of possible sources, as well as attachments detailing the Charter questions and data collection tasks being contemplated.
A Google Doc showing all the various data collection tasks identified to date (as noted in Attachment 2 to the draft request form described above), where the Working Group co-chairs have noted a preferred prioritization level to each task.
The staff understanding is that we will be focusing on a review of the Google Doc on the call.
Thanks and cheers
Mary
_______________________________________________ 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
------------------------------
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 <(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 https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
Hi George, You raise some good points: 1) Collection of data re: domains which did and did not generate URS claims is an issue we discussed often. It came up in our data gathering discussions (Co-Chairs and ICANN Staff), including ICANN data gathering expert Berry Cobb). I would think this may be an oversight and recommend we add. 2) As you have seen in my prioritization, I think reaching into UDRP cases is going far afield. Ample time for that in Phase 2, but that's my opinion and we welcome yours. 3) Your warning about pulling down accurate WHOIS, and not registration data from a domain name re-registered to another registrant, is a fair one./Mary, I do think this is a valid footnote to add for future data gathers./ Looking forward to our discussion in a few minutes. Kathy On 9/6/2017 8:02 AM, George Kirikos wrote:
For the collection of data regarding the URS/UDRP cases, it doesn't appear that any data is being collected regarding how many domains were registered in the same periods that *didn't* generate URS/UDRP complaints. That was an essential point, which was already raised previously (and appeared in a previous document), in order to ensure that it is a relative measurement (not an absolute one).
Also, when the data is being compiled for URS/UDRP complaints, it appears it's only checking whether the domain name was registered within a TMCH claims period. It should be broken down into even more detail, i.e. was the name registered in (a) landrush period (i.e. post-sunrise) with TMCH claims notice, (b) GA period with TMCH claims notices (i.e. post landrush), or (c) GA period without TMCH claims notices. If it turns out that the rate of cybersquatting in the landrush period was low, that supports the argument that the sunrise period can be eliminated without major harmful effects. On the other hand, if it turns out that the rate of cybersquatting in the landrush period was too high, that might argue for the retention of sunrises.
When pulling down WHOIS records, be careful to ensure that the domain hasn't been deleted and re-registered (might require use of historical WHOIS, e.g. from DomainTools.com).
With regards to "expanded match", it is going to be prohibitively expensive, in my opinion, relative to the other questions we're tasked with, since it basically requires building nearly the full system in question to test it with the historical data, etc. I've already pointed out the huge number of expanded terms generated by each rule, in a past email. Greg (or someone else) should generate all the relevant matches manually for a subset of common terms, e.g. taken from the Top 500 most commonly requested terms we've been waiting for from The Analysis Group), and those expanded matches should be evaluated by the working group, before hundreds of thousands of dollars, or even millions of dollars, are invested to build out the actual system being proposed.
There's a point in #8 (Contractors) about "ICANN staff to work with Deloitte and/or IBM to obtain aggregated, anonymized statistics demonstrating percentage of disputed domains that were registered in Sunrise and that generated a Claims Notice." That doesn't make sense to me --- in order to register in Sunrise, didn't one *need* to be a TM owner that had also purchased a recordal in the TMCH??
Under point #12 (middle column), it says "Compilation of all URS cases" -- shouldn't that have also included UDRP cases (for new gTLD domains), to match point #7, which measured both?
Generally, the data requests appear to be unbalanced, in that they are more focused on evaluating all possible harms of cybersquatting (e.g. "all form of consumer harm" in one point) in order to justify retention of the RPMs, while not balancing that out by looking for *all* data that could document the possible benefits of elimination of the RPMs in question (including, but not limited to, points I've already raised that are not reflected in the current draft data requests).
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 12:21 AM, Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org> wrote:
Dear all,
The proposed agenda for our next Working Group call, coming up today at 1700 UTC, is as follows:
Roll call (via Adobe Connect and phone bridge only); updates to Statements of Interest Review draft GNSO Council data collection request (including suggested prioritization levels from the Working Group co-chairs) Next steps/next meeting
For agenda item #2, the following documents are attached:
A draft request to the GNSO Council, in the form prescribed by the GNSO Operating Procedures, outlining the request, the rationale for the request, an initial estimated budget and list of possible sources, as well as attachments detailing the Charter questions and data collection tasks being contemplated.
A Google Doc showing all the various data collection tasks identified to date (as noted in Attachment 2 to the draft request form described above), where the Working Group co-chairs have noted a preferred prioritization level to each task.
The staff understanding is that we will be focusing on a review of the Google Doc on the call.
Thanks and cheers
Mary
_______________________________________________ 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
One personal comment. I am in general agreement with this portion of George's posting: Also, when the data is being compiled for URS/UDRP complaints, it appears it's only checking whether the domain name was registered within a TMCH claims period. It should be broken down into even more detail, i.e. was the name registered in (a) landrush period (i.e. post-sunrise) with TMCH claims notice, (b) GA period with TMCH claims notices (i.e. post landrush), or (c) GA period without TMCH claims notices. Simply finding out which domains registered during the claims notice period, versus which ones registered post-claims notice, were subsequently the subject of a URS (and possibly UDRP) action is not very useful information for evaluating the efficacy of the claims notice in deterring infringement if the researchers do not know which ones were exact matches of marks actually registered in the TMCH and therefore generated claims notices. Therefore, I believe the researchers involved in the relevant survey should have access to that information for the purpose of generating much more useful results. To be clear, these results would be released in the aggregate and no specific marks would be publicly revealed to be in the TMCH, as I don't wish to ignite that debate again. 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 George Kirikos Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2017 8:02 AM To: Mary Wong Cc: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Agenda and documents for RPM Working Group call on Wednesday 6 September 2017 For the collection of data regarding the URS/UDRP cases, it doesn't appear that any data is being collected regarding how many domains were registered in the same periods that *didn't* generate URS/UDRP complaints. That was an essential point, which was already raised previously (and appeared in a previous document), in order to ensure that it is a relative measurement (not an absolute one). Also, when the data is being compiled for URS/UDRP complaints, it appears it's only checking whether the domain name was registered within a TMCH claims period. It should be broken down into even more detail, i.e. was the name registered in (a) landrush period (i.e. post-sunrise) with TMCH claims notice, (b) GA period with TMCH claims notices (i.e. post landrush), or (c) GA period without TMCH claims notices. If it turns out that the rate of cybersquatting in the landrush period was low, that supports the argument that the sunrise period can be eliminated without major harmful effects. On the other hand, if it turns out that the rate of cybersquatting in the landrush period was too high, that might argue for the retention of sunrises. When pulling down WHOIS records, be careful to ensure that the domain hasn't been deleted and re-registered (might require use of historical WHOIS, e.g. from DomainTools.com). With regards to "expanded match", it is going to be prohibitively expensive, in my opinion, relative to the other questions we're tasked with, since it basically requires building nearly the full system in question to test it with the historical data, etc. I've already pointed out the huge number of expanded terms generated by each rule, in a past email. Greg (or someone else) should generate all the relevant matches manually for a subset of common terms, e.g. taken from the Top 500 most commonly requested terms we've been waiting for from The Analysis Group), and those expanded matches should be evaluated by the working group, before hundreds of thousands of dollars, or even millions of dollars, are invested to build out the actual system being proposed. There's a point in #8 (Contractors) about "ICANN staff to work with Deloitte and/or IBM to obtain aggregated, anonymized statistics demonstrating percentage of disputed domains that were registered in Sunrise and that generated a Claims Notice." That doesn't make sense to me --- in order to register in Sunrise, didn't one *need* to be a TM owner that had also purchased a recordal in the TMCH?? Under point #12 (middle column), it says "Compilation of all URS cases" -- shouldn't that have also included UDRP cases (for new gTLD domains), to match point #7, which measured both? Generally, the data requests appear to be unbalanced, in that they are more focused on evaluating all possible harms of cybersquatting (e.g. "all form of consumer harm" in one point) in order to justify retention of the RPMs, while not balancing that out by looking for *all* data that could document the possible benefits of elimination of the RPMs in question (including, but not limited to, points I've already raised that are not reflected in the current draft data requests). Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 12:21 AM, Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org> wrote:
Dear all,
The proposed agenda for our next Working Group call, coming up today at 1700 UTC, is as follows:
Roll call (via Adobe Connect and phone bridge only); updates to Statements of Interest Review draft GNSO Council data collection request (including suggested prioritization levels from the Working Group co-chairs) Next steps/next meeting
For agenda item #2, the following documents are attached:
A draft request to the GNSO Council, in the form prescribed by the GNSO Operating Procedures, outlining the request, the rationale for the request, an initial estimated budget and list of possible sources, as well as attachments detailing the Charter questions and data collection tasks being contemplated.
A Google Doc showing all the various data collection tasks identified to date (as noted in Attachment 2 to the draft request form described above), where the Working Group co-chairs have noted a preferred prioritization level to each task.
The staff understanding is that we will be focusing on a review of the Google Doc on the call.
Thanks and cheers
Mary
_______________________________________________ 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
participants (8)
-
claudio di gangi -
George Kirikos -
Greg Shatan -
Kathy Kleiman -
Mary Wong -
Nahitchevansky, Georges -
Phil Corwin -
Susan Payne