TMCH data on abandonment
Dear all, I'm not sure what is the right venue (i.e., in the sub-group, of which I am not a member, or to the full WG) to offer this, and it is offered merely to help fill out some of the questions/discussion around seeking various TMCH/Claims-related data. In the transcript for the Sub Team for Trademark Claims call on Friday, 02 June 2017 at 16:00 UTC, there was some discussion on abandonment rates. In summary: Rebeca Tushnet suggested it would be helpful to compare non-TMCH-related abandonment vs "regular" abandonment. Jeff Neuman recalled that during the BIZ launch there was a high abandonment. Phil Corwin suggested that if the non-TMCH-related abandonment rate was 80% then it may be reasonable to conclude that there's not a material difference between those subject to claims notices. Mindful that it may be difficult or even impossible to obtain the desired data (a number of reasons, including competitive (dis-)advantages, were raised on the call), a recent GoDaddy post informs us that "An average website loses 69 percent<https://baymard.com/lists/cart-abandonment-rate> of sales to abandoned carts." A second GoDaddy article suggests it is 67%. See https://www.godaddy.com/garage/smallbusiness/market/effective-strategies-to-... and https://www.godaddy.com/garage/industry/retail/ecommerce/want-to-to-increase.... There are many articles on this topic with varying figures, but they tended to generally note abandonment rates upwards of 60%. The takeaway is that the TMCH-Claims rates observed here in the WG, while different/higher, are arguably not materially different than e-commerce statistics generally (certainly not the 20% noted by Phil Corwin as signaling "a significant difference in the completion of registration."). It is important here to recall too that many members of the WG have noted that (for a number of reasons) registries, registrars, and registrants may have been sending queries in large numbers, thus skewing the data upwards. Best regards, Brian Brian Beckham | Head, Internet Dispute Resolution Section | WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center 34 chemin des Colombettes, 1211 Geneva 20, Switzerland | T +4122 338 8247 | E brian.beckham@wipo.int<mailto:brian.beckham@wipo.int> | www.wipo.int<http://www.wipo.int/>
I agree with Paul K. Unfortunately, we need better information than that--we need to know about, of attempts that reached the stage at which a notice would be provided, how many were abandoned. It's my understanding--though I'd be happy to learn more--that the notice wouldn't come when the shopping cart was filled but at checkout. If we just don't have the data, then it may be that our only recommendation must be to get the data. Rebecca Tushnet Georgetown Law 703 593 6759 On Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 4:56 AM, Beckham, Brian <brian.beckham@wipo.int> wrote:
Dear all,
I’m not sure what is the right venue (i.e., in the sub-group, of which I am not a member, or to the full WG) to offer this, and it is offered merely to help fill out some of the questions/discussion around seeking various TMCH/Claims-related data.
In the transcript for the Sub Team for Trademark Claims call on Friday, 02 June 2017 at 16:00 UTC, there was some discussion on abandonment rates. In summary: Rebeca Tushnet suggested it would be helpful to compare non-TMCH-related abandonment vs “regular” abandonment. Jeff Neuman recalled that during the BIZ launch there was a high abandonment. Phil Corwin suggested that if the non-TMCH-related abandonment rate was 80% then it may be reasonable to conclude that there’s not a material difference between those subject to claims notices.
Mindful that it may be difficult or even impossible to obtain the desired data (a number of reasons, including competitive (dis-)advantages, were raised on the call), a recent GoDaddy post informs us that “An average website loses 69 percent of sales to abandoned carts.” A second GoDaddy article suggests it is 67%.
See https://www.godaddy.com/garage/smallbusiness/market/effective-strategies-to-... and
https://www.godaddy.com/garage/industry/retail/ecommerce/want-to-to-increase....
There are many articles on this topic with varying figures, but they tended to generally note abandonment rates upwards of 60%.
The takeaway is that the TMCH-Claims rates observed here in the WG, while different/higher, are arguably not materially different than e-commerce statistics generally (certainly not the 20% noted by Phil Corwin as signaling “a significant difference in the completion of registration.”).
It is important here to recall too that many members of the WG have noted that (for a number of reasons) registries, registrars, and registrants may have been sending queries in large numbers, thus skewing the data upwards.
Best regards,
Brian
Brian Beckham | Head, Internet Dispute Resolution Section | WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center 34 chemin des Colombettes, 1211 Geneva 20, Switzerland | T +4122 338 8247 | E brian.beckham@wipo.int | www.wipo.int
_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
I will remind the group that Abandonment is the point. The TM Claims notice is designed to inform would-be innocent infringers that there is an issue. A high abandonment rate show that the system is working. I realize those hostile to the TM Claims feel that a high abandonment rate is proof that the Claims notice is overreaching. Not so. J. Scott J. Scott Evans 408.536.5336 (tel) 345 Park Avenue, Mail Stop W11-544 Director, Trademarks 408.709.6162 (cell) San Jose, CA, 95110, USA Adobe. Make It an Experience. jsevans@adobe.com www.adobe.com On 6/9/17, 7:16 AM, "gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Rebecca Tushnet" <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Rebecca.Tushnet@law.georgetown.edu> wrote: I agree with Paul K. Unfortunately, we need better information than that--we need to know about, of attempts that reached the stage at which a notice would be provided, how many were abandoned. It's my understanding--though I'd be happy to learn more--that the notice wouldn't come when the shopping cart was filled but at checkout. If we just don't have the data, then it may be that our only recommendation must be to get the data. Rebecca Tushnet Georgetown Law 703 593 6759 On Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 4:56 AM, Beckham, Brian <brian.beckham@wipo.int> wrote: > Dear all, > > > > I’m not sure what is the right venue (i.e., in the sub-group, of which I am > not a member, or to the full WG) to offer this, and it is offered merely to > help fill out some of the questions/discussion around seeking various > TMCH/Claims-related data. > > > > In the transcript for the Sub Team for Trademark Claims call on Friday, 02 > June 2017 at 16:00 UTC, there was some discussion on abandonment rates. In > summary: Rebeca Tushnet suggested it would be helpful to compare > non-TMCH-related abandonment vs “regular” abandonment. Jeff Neuman recalled > that during the BIZ launch there was a high abandonment. Phil Corwin > suggested that if the non-TMCH-related abandonment rate was 80% then it may > be reasonable to conclude that there’s not a material difference between > those subject to claims notices. > > > > Mindful that it may be difficult or even impossible to obtain the desired > data (a number of reasons, including competitive (dis-)advantages, were > raised on the call), a recent GoDaddy post informs us that “An average > website loses 69 percent of sales to abandoned carts.” A second GoDaddy > article suggests it is 67%. > > > > See > https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.godaddy... > and > > https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.godaddy.... > > > > There are many articles on this topic with varying figures, but they tended > to generally note abandonment rates upwards of 60%. > > > > The takeaway is that the TMCH-Claims rates observed here in the WG, while > different/higher, are arguably not materially different than e-commerce > statistics generally (certainly not the 20% noted by Phil Corwin as > signaling “a significant difference in the completion of registration.”). > > > > It is important here to recall too that many members of the WG have noted > that (for a number of reasons) registries, registrars, and registrants may > have been sending queries in large numbers, thus skewing the data upwards. > > > > Best regards, > > > > Brian > > > > Brian Beckham | Head, Internet Dispute Resolution Section | WIPO Arbitration > and Mediation Center > 34 chemin des Colombettes, 1211 Geneva 20, Switzerland | T +4122 338 8247 | > E brian.beckham@wipo.int | https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=www.wipo.int&data=02%7C01... > > > > > _______________________________________________ > gnso-rpm-wg mailing list > gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org > https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.or... _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.or...
That assumes facts not in evidence--that all attempts to register something like hotel.xyz or cloud.xyz were infringing, to take two of the top string that were queried. Which is really the point--and which is why we see people arguing simultaneously that (1) abandonment is good and (2) we don't know if notices trigger additional abandonment. Rebecca Tushnet Georgetown Law 703 593 6759 On Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 10:18 AM, J. Scott Evans <jsevans@adobe.com> wrote:
I will remind the group that Abandonment is the point. The TM Claims notice is designed to inform would-be innocent infringers that there is an issue. A high abandonment rate show that the system is working. I realize those hostile to the TM Claims feel that a high abandonment rate is proof that the Claims notice is overreaching. Not so.
J. Scott
J. Scott Evans 408.536.5336 (tel) 345 Park Avenue, Mail Stop W11-544 Director, Trademarks 408.709.6162 (cell) San Jose, CA, 95110, USA Adobe. Make It an Experience. jsevans@adobe.com www.adobe.com
On 6/9/17, 7:16 AM, "gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Rebecca Tushnet" <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Rebecca.Tushnet@law.georgetown.edu> wrote:
I agree with Paul K. Unfortunately, we need better information than that--we need to know about, of attempts that reached the stage at which a notice would be provided, how many were abandoned. It's my understanding--though I'd be happy to learn more--that the notice wouldn't come when the shopping cart was filled but at checkout.
If we just don't have the data, then it may be that our only recommendation must be to get the data. Rebecca Tushnet Georgetown Law 703 593 6759
On Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 4:56 AM, Beckham, Brian <brian.beckham@wipo.int> wrote: > Dear all, > > > > I’m not sure what is the right venue (i.e., in the sub-group, of which I am > not a member, or to the full WG) to offer this, and it is offered merely to > help fill out some of the questions/discussion around seeking various > TMCH/Claims-related data. > > > > In the transcript for the Sub Team for Trademark Claims call on Friday, 02 > June 2017 at 16:00 UTC, there was some discussion on abandonment rates. In > summary: Rebeca Tushnet suggested it would be helpful to compare > non-TMCH-related abandonment vs “regular” abandonment. Jeff Neuman recalled > that during the BIZ launch there was a high abandonment. Phil Corwin > suggested that if the non-TMCH-related abandonment rate was 80% then it may > be reasonable to conclude that there’s not a material difference between > those subject to claims notices. > > > > Mindful that it may be difficult or even impossible to obtain the desired > data (a number of reasons, including competitive (dis-)advantages, were > raised on the call), a recent GoDaddy post informs us that “An average > website loses 69 percent of sales to abandoned carts.” A second GoDaddy > article suggests it is 67%. > > > > See > https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.godaddy... > and > > https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.godaddy.... > > > > There are many articles on this topic with varying figures, but they tended > to generally note abandonment rates upwards of 60%. > > > > The takeaway is that the TMCH-Claims rates observed here in the WG, while > different/higher, are arguably not materially different than e-commerce > statistics generally (certainly not the 20% noted by Phil Corwin as > signaling “a significant difference in the completion of registration.”). > > > > It is important here to recall too that many members of the WG have noted > that (for a number of reasons) registries, registrars, and registrants may > have been sending queries in large numbers, thus skewing the data upwards. > > > > Best regards, > > > > Brian > > > > Brian Beckham | Head, Internet Dispute Resolution Section | WIPO Arbitration > and Mediation Center > 34 chemin des Colombettes, 1211 Geneva 20, Switzerland | T +4122 338 8247 | > E brian.beckham@wipo.int | https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=www.wipo.int&data=02%7C01... > > > > > _______________________________________________ > gnso-rpm-wg mailing list > gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org > https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.or... _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.or...
J. Scott, respectfully, what evidence is there that the Claims notice provided to registrants is not having a chilling effect for those with no intention to infringe? I understand there is not direct evidence on either side of the issue, but to say decisively that it is "Not so" about the chilling effect without providing some evidence seems unnecessarily flippant. Brian Cimbolic Deputy General Counsel, Public Interest Registry Office: +1 703 889-5752| Mobile: + 1 571 385-7871| www.pir.org | Facebook | Twitter | Instagram | YouTube Confidentiality Note: Proprietary and confidential to Public Interest Registry. If received in error, please inform sender and then delete. -----Original Message----- From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of J. Scott Evans via gnso-rpm-wg Sent: Friday, June 09, 2017 10:19 AM To: Rebecca Tushnet <Rebecca.Tushnet@law.georgetown.edu>; Beckham, Brian <brian.beckham@wipo.int> Cc: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] TMCH data on abandonment Importance: High I will remind the group that Abandonment is the point. The TM Claims notice is designed to inform would-be innocent infringers that there is an issue. A high abandonment rate show that the system is working. I realize those hostile to the TM Claims feel that a high abandonment rate is proof that the Claims notice is overreaching. Not so. J. Scott J. Scott Evans 408.536.5336 (tel) 345 Park Avenue, Mail Stop W11-544 Director, Trademarks 408.709.6162 (cell) San Jose, CA, 95110, USA Adobe. Make It an Experience. jsevans@adobe.com www.adobe.com On 6/9/17, 7:16 AM, "gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Rebecca Tushnet" <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Rebecca.Tushnet@law.georgetown.edu> wrote: I agree with Paul K. Unfortunately, we need better information than that--we need to know about, of attempts that reached the stage at which a notice would be provided, how many were abandoned. It's my understanding--though I'd be happy to learn more--that the notice wouldn't come when the shopping cart was filled but at checkout. If we just don't have the data, then it may be that our only recommendation must be to get the data. Rebecca Tushnet Georgetown Law 703 593 6759 On Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 4:56 AM, Beckham, Brian <brian.beckham@wipo.int> wrote: > Dear all, > > > > I’m not sure what is the right venue (i.e., in the sub-group, of which I am > not a member, or to the full WG) to offer this, and it is offered merely to > help fill out some of the questions/discussion around seeking various > TMCH/Claims-related data. > > > > In the transcript for the Sub Team for Trademark Claims call on Friday, 02 > June 2017 at 16:00 UTC, there was some discussion on abandonment rates. In > summary: Rebeca Tushnet suggested it would be helpful to compare > non-TMCH-related abandonment vs “regular” abandonment. Jeff Neuman recalled > that during the BIZ launch there was a high abandonment. Phil Corwin > suggested that if the non-TMCH-related abandonment rate was 80% then it may > be reasonable to conclude that there’s not a material difference between > those subject to claims notices. > > > > Mindful that it may be difficult or even impossible to obtain the desired > data (a number of reasons, including competitive (dis-)advantages, were > raised on the call), a recent GoDaddy post informs us that “An average > website loses 69 percent of sales to abandoned carts.” A second GoDaddy > article suggests it is 67%. > > > > See > https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.godaddy... > and > > https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.godaddy.... > > > > There are many articles on this topic with varying figures, but they tended > to generally note abandonment rates upwards of 60%. > > > > The takeaway is that the TMCH-Claims rates observed here in the WG, while > different/higher, are arguably not materially different than e-commerce > statistics generally (certainly not the 20% noted by Phil Corwin as > signaling “a significant difference in the completion of registration.”). > > > > It is important here to recall too that many members of the WG have noted > that (for a number of reasons) registries, registrars, and registrants may > have been sending queries in large numbers, thus skewing the data upwards. > > > > Best regards, > > > > Brian > > > > Brian Beckham | Head, Internet Dispute Resolution Section | WIPO Arbitration > and Mediation Center > 34 chemin des Colombettes, 1211 Geneva 20, Switzerland | T +4122 338 8247 | > E brian.beckham@wipo.int | https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=www.wipo.int&data=02%7C01... > > > > > _______________________________________________ > gnso-rpm-wg mailing list > gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org > https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.or... _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.or... _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
Brain. Point taken. I don’t mean to be flippant. That said, I am growing increasing tired of there always being a negative inference from behaviors from those that are overall hostile to RPMs in general. My point is that as a proponent of RPMs and someone who worked diligently for over 9 months to come up with these RPMs that the abandonment rate does not automatically indicate that the system is not working as intended. J. Scott Evans 408.536.5336 (tel) 345 Park Avenue, Mail Stop W11-544 Director, Trademarks 408.709.6162 (cell) San Jose, CA, 95110, USA Adobe. Make It an Experience. jsevans@adobe.com www.adobe.com On 6/9/17, 7:24 AM, "Brian F. Cimbolic" <BCimbolic@pir.org> wrote: J. Scott, respectfully, what evidence is there that the Claims notice provided to registrants is not having a chilling effect for those with no intention to infringe? I understand there is not direct evidence on either side of the issue, but to say decisively that it is "Not so" about the chilling effect without providing some evidence seems unnecessarily flippant. Brian Cimbolic Deputy General Counsel, Public Interest Registry Office: +1 703 889-5752| Mobile: + 1 571 385-7871| https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=www.pir.org&data=02%7C01%... | Facebook | Twitter | Instagram | YouTube Confidentiality Note: Proprietary and confidential to Public Interest Registry. If received in error, please inform sender and then delete. -----Original Message----- From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of J. Scott Evans via gnso-rpm-wg Sent: Friday, June 09, 2017 10:19 AM To: Rebecca Tushnet <Rebecca.Tushnet@law.georgetown.edu>; Beckham, Brian <brian.beckham@wipo.int> Cc: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] TMCH data on abandonment Importance: High I will remind the group that Abandonment is the point. The TM Claims notice is designed to inform would-be innocent infringers that there is an issue. A high abandonment rate show that the system is working. I realize those hostile to the TM Claims feel that a high abandonment rate is proof that the Claims notice is overreaching. Not so. J. Scott J. Scott Evans 408.536.5336 (tel) 345 Park Avenue, Mail Stop W11-544 Director, Trademarks 408.709.6162 (cell) San Jose, CA, 95110, USA Adobe. Make It an Experience. jsevans@adobe.com www.adobe.com On 6/9/17, 7:16 AM, "gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Rebecca Tushnet" <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Rebecca.Tushnet@law.georgetown.edu> wrote: I agree with Paul K. Unfortunately, we need better information than that--we need to know about, of attempts that reached the stage at which a notice would be provided, how many were abandoned. It's my understanding--though I'd be happy to learn more--that the notice wouldn't come when the shopping cart was filled but at checkout. If we just don't have the data, then it may be that our only recommendation must be to get the data. Rebecca Tushnet Georgetown Law 703 593 6759 On Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 4:56 AM, Beckham, Brian <brian.beckham@wipo.int> wrote: > Dear all, > > > > I’m not sure what is the right venue (i.e., in the sub-group, of which I am > not a member, or to the full WG) to offer this, and it is offered merely to > help fill out some of the questions/discussion around seeking various > TMCH/Claims-related data. > > > > In the transcript for the Sub Team for Trademark Claims call on Friday, 02 > June 2017 at 16:00 UTC, there was some discussion on abandonment rates. In > summary: Rebeca Tushnet suggested it would be helpful to compare > non-TMCH-related abandonment vs “regular” abandonment. Jeff Neuman recalled > that during the BIZ launch there was a high abandonment. Phil Corwin > suggested that if the non-TMCH-related abandonment rate was 80% then it may > be reasonable to conclude that there’s not a material difference between > those subject to claims notices. > > > > Mindful that it may be difficult or even impossible to obtain the desired > data (a number of reasons, including competitive (dis-)advantages, were > raised on the call), a recent GoDaddy post informs us that “An average > website loses 69 percent of sales to abandoned carts.” A second GoDaddy > article suggests it is 67%. > > > > See > https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.godaddy... > and > > https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.godaddy.... > > > > There are many articles on this topic with varying figures, but they tended > to generally note abandonment rates upwards of 60%. > > > > The takeaway is that the TMCH-Claims rates observed here in the WG, while > different/higher, are arguably not materially different than e-commerce > statistics generally (certainly not the 20% noted by Phil Corwin as > signaling “a significant difference in the completion of registration.”). > > > > It is important here to recall too that many members of the WG have noted > that (for a number of reasons) registries, registrars, and registrants may > have been sending queries in large numbers, thus skewing the data upwards. > > > > Best regards, > > > > Brian > > > > Brian Beckham | Head, Internet Dispute Resolution Section | WIPO Arbitration > and Mediation Center > 34 chemin des Colombettes, 1211 Geneva 20, Switzerland | T +4122 338 8247 | > E brian.beckham@wipo.int | https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=www.wipo.int&data=02%7C01... > > > > > _______________________________________________ > gnso-rpm-wg mailing list > gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org > https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.or... _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.or... _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.or...
Thanks J. Scott and understood. That being said, it seems that a running commentary from both sides of this issue is that there is no direct evidence supporting either position. Could this PDP be in a position to remedy that by asking ICANN to commission a survey/study to try to cut to the heart of the matter? Perhaps the survey could examine abandonment rates and registrant responses to receipt of the Claims notice. This is obviously in the "spitballing" phase of an idea, but it seems the only way to get over the hump on this issue is to have some objective source for all sides to look to. Thanks. Brian Cimbolic Deputy General Counsel, Public Interest Registry Office: +1 703 889-5752| Mobile: + 1 571 385-7871| www.pir.org | Facebook | Twitter | Instagram | YouTube Confidentiality Note: Proprietary and confidential to Public Interest Registry. If received in error, please inform sender and then delete. -----Original Message----- From: J. Scott Evans [mailto:jsevans@adobe.com] Sent: Friday, June 09, 2017 10:28 AM To: Brian F. Cimbolic <BCimbolic@pir.org>; Rebecca Tushnet <Rebecca.Tushnet@law.georgetown.edu>; Beckham, Brian <brian.beckham@wipo.int> Cc: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] TMCH data on abandonment Brain. Point taken. I don’t mean to be flippant. That said, I am growing increasing tired of there always being a negative inference from behaviors from those that are overall hostile to RPMs in general. My point is that as a proponent of RPMs and someone who worked diligently for over 9 months to come up with these RPMs that the abandonment rate does not automatically indicate that the system is not working as intended. J. Scott Evans 408.536.5336 (tel) 345 Park Avenue, Mail Stop W11-544 Director, Trademarks 408.709.6162 (cell) San Jose, CA, 95110, USA Adobe. Make It an Experience. jsevans@adobe.com www.adobe.com On 6/9/17, 7:24 AM, "Brian F. Cimbolic" <BCimbolic@pir.org> wrote: J. Scott, respectfully, what evidence is there that the Claims notice provided to registrants is not having a chilling effect for those with no intention to infringe? I understand there is not direct evidence on either side of the issue, but to say decisively that it is "Not so" about the chilling effect without providing some evidence seems unnecessarily flippant. Brian Cimbolic Deputy General Counsel, Public Interest Registry Office: +1 703 889-5752| Mobile: + 1 571 385-7871| https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=www.pir.org&data=02%7C01%... | Facebook | Twitter | Instagram | YouTube Confidentiality Note: Proprietary and confidential to Public Interest Registry. If received in error, please inform sender and then delete. -----Original Message----- From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of J. Scott Evans via gnso-rpm-wg Sent: Friday, June 09, 2017 10:19 AM To: Rebecca Tushnet <Rebecca.Tushnet@law.georgetown.edu>; Beckham, Brian <brian.beckham@wipo.int> Cc: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] TMCH data on abandonment Importance: High I will remind the group that Abandonment is the point. The TM Claims notice is designed to inform would-be innocent infringers that there is an issue. A high abandonment rate show that the system is working. I realize those hostile to the TM Claims feel that a high abandonment rate is proof that the Claims notice is overreaching. Not so. J. Scott J. Scott Evans 408.536.5336 (tel) 345 Park Avenue, Mail Stop W11-544 Director, Trademarks 408.709.6162 (cell) San Jose, CA, 95110, USA Adobe. Make It an Experience. jsevans@adobe.com www.adobe.com On 6/9/17, 7:16 AM, "gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Rebecca Tushnet" <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Rebecca.Tushnet@law.georgetown.edu> wrote: I agree with Paul K. Unfortunately, we need better information than that--we need to know about, of attempts that reached the stage at which a notice would be provided, how many were abandoned. It's my understanding--though I'd be happy to learn more--that the notice wouldn't come when the shopping cart was filled but at checkout. If we just don't have the data, then it may be that our only recommendation must be to get the data. Rebecca Tushnet Georgetown Law 703 593 6759 On Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 4:56 AM, Beckham, Brian <brian.beckham@wipo.int> wrote: > Dear all, > > > > I’m not sure what is the right venue (i.e., in the sub-group, of which I am > not a member, or to the full WG) to offer this, and it is offered merely to > help fill out some of the questions/discussion around seeking various > TMCH/Claims-related data. > > > > In the transcript for the Sub Team for Trademark Claims call on Friday, 02 > June 2017 at 16:00 UTC, there was some discussion on abandonment rates. In > summary: Rebeca Tushnet suggested it would be helpful to compare > non-TMCH-related abandonment vs “regular” abandonment. Jeff Neuman recalled > that during the BIZ launch there was a high abandonment. Phil Corwin > suggested that if the non-TMCH-related abandonment rate was 80% then it may > be reasonable to conclude that there’s not a material difference between > those subject to claims notices. > > > > Mindful that it may be difficult or even impossible to obtain the desired > data (a number of reasons, including competitive (dis-)advantages, were > raised on the call), a recent GoDaddy post informs us that “An average > website loses 69 percent of sales to abandoned carts.” A second GoDaddy > article suggests it is 67%. > > > > See > https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.godaddy... > and > > https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.godaddy.... > > > > There are many articles on this topic with varying figures, but they tended > to generally note abandonment rates upwards of 60%. > > > > The takeaway is that the TMCH-Claims rates observed here in the WG, while > different/higher, are arguably not materially different than e-commerce > statistics generally (certainly not the 20% noted by Phil Corwin as > signaling “a significant difference in the completion of registration.”). > > > > It is important here to recall too that many members of the WG have noted > that (for a number of reasons) registries, registrars, and registrants may > have been sending queries in large numbers, thus skewing the data upwards. > > > > Best regards, > > > > Brian > > > > Brian Beckham | Head, Internet Dispute Resolution Section | WIPO Arbitration > and Mediation Center > 34 chemin des Colombettes, 1211 Geneva 20, Switzerland | T +4122 338 8247 | > E brian.beckham@wipo.int | https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=www.wipo.int&data=02%7C01... > > > > > _______________________________________________ > gnso-rpm-wg mailing list > gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org > https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.or... _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.or... _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.or...
That's a solid idea Brian. Commission an independent research firm to do a study. That would be good at looking at different potential wordings of the notice. We should try to get the registrars to provide actual data as well. Best, Jon
On Jun 9, 2017, at 10:45 AM, Brian F. Cimbolic <BCimbolic@pir.org> wrote:
Thanks J. Scott and understood. That being said, it seems that a running commentary from both sides of this issue is that there is no direct evidence supporting either position. Could this PDP be in a position to remedy that by asking ICANN to commission a survey/study to try to cut to the heart of the matter? Perhaps the survey could examine abandonment rates and registrant responses to receipt of the Claims notice. This is obviously in the "spitballing" phase of an idea, but it seems the only way to get over the hump on this issue is to have some objective source for all sides to look to.
Thanks.
Brian Cimbolic Deputy General Counsel, Public Interest Registry Office: +1 703 889-5752| Mobile: + 1 571 385-7871| www.pir.org | Facebook | Twitter | Instagram | YouTube
Confidentiality Note: Proprietary and confidential to Public Interest Registry. If received in error, please inform sender and then delete.
-----Original Message----- From: J. Scott Evans [mailto:jsevans@adobe.com] Sent: Friday, June 09, 2017 10:28 AM To: Brian F. Cimbolic <BCimbolic@pir.org>; Rebecca Tushnet <Rebecca.Tushnet@law.georgetown.edu>; Beckham, Brian <brian.beckham@wipo.int> Cc: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] TMCH data on abandonment
Brain. Point taken. I don’t mean to be flippant. That said, I am growing increasing tired of there always being a negative inference from behaviors from those that are overall hostile to RPMs in general. My point is that as a proponent of RPMs and someone who worked diligently for over 9 months to come up with these RPMs that the abandonment rate does not automatically indicate that the system is not working as intended.
J. Scott Evans 408.536.5336 (tel) 345 Park Avenue, Mail Stop W11-544 Director, Trademarks 408.709.6162 (cell) San Jose, CA, 95110, USA Adobe. Make It an Experience. jsevans@adobe.com www.adobe.com
On 6/9/17, 7:24 AM, "Brian F. Cimbolic" <BCimbolic@pir.org> wrote:
J. Scott, respectfully, what evidence is there that the Claims notice provided to registrants is not having a chilling effect for those with no intention to infringe? I understand there is not direct evidence on either side of the issue, but to say decisively that it is "Not so" about the chilling effect without providing some evidence seems unnecessarily flippant.
Brian Cimbolic Deputy General Counsel, Public Interest Registry Office: +1 703 889-5752| Mobile: + 1 571 385-7871| https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=www.pir.org&data=02%7C01%... | Facebook | Twitter | Instagram | YouTube
Confidentiality Note: Proprietary and confidential to Public Interest Registry. If received in error, please inform sender and then delete.
-----Original Message----- From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of J. Scott Evans via gnso-rpm-wg Sent: Friday, June 09, 2017 10:19 AM To: Rebecca Tushnet <Rebecca.Tushnet@law.georgetown.edu>; Beckham, Brian <brian.beckham@wipo.int> Cc: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] TMCH data on abandonment Importance: High
I will remind the group that Abandonment is the point. The TM Claims notice is designed to inform would-be innocent infringers that there is an issue. A high abandonment rate show that the system is working. I realize those hostile to the TM Claims feel that a high abandonment rate is proof that the Claims notice is overreaching. Not so.
J. Scott
J. Scott Evans 408.536.5336 (tel) 345 Park Avenue, Mail Stop W11-544 Director, Trademarks 408.709.6162 (cell) San Jose, CA, 95110, USA Adobe. Make It an Experience. jsevans@adobe.com www.adobe.com
On 6/9/17, 7:16 AM, "gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Rebecca Tushnet" <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Rebecca.Tushnet@law.georgetown.edu> wrote:
I agree with Paul K. Unfortunately, we need better information than that--we need to know about, of attempts that reached the stage at which a notice would be provided, how many were abandoned. It's my understanding--though I'd be happy to learn more--that the notice wouldn't come when the shopping cart was filled but at checkout.
If we just don't have the data, then it may be that our only recommendation must be to get the data. Rebecca Tushnet Georgetown Law 703 593 6759
On Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 4:56 AM, Beckham, Brian <brian.beckham@wipo.int> wrote:
Dear all,
I’m not sure what is the right venue (i.e., in the sub-group, of which I am not a member, or to the full WG) to offer this, and it is offered merely to help fill out some of the questions/discussion around seeking various TMCH/Claims-related data.
In the transcript for the Sub Team for Trademark Claims call on Friday, 02 June 2017 at 16:00 UTC, there was some discussion on abandonment rates. In summary: Rebeca Tushnet suggested it would be helpful to compare non-TMCH-related abandonment vs “regular” abandonment. Jeff Neuman recalled that during the BIZ launch there was a high abandonment. Phil Corwin suggested that if the non-TMCH-related abandonment rate was 80% then it may be reasonable to conclude that there’s not a material difference between those subject to claims notices.
Mindful that it may be difficult or even impossible to obtain the desired data (a number of reasons, including competitive (dis-)advantages, were raised on the call), a recent GoDaddy post informs us that “An average website loses 69 percent of sales to abandoned carts.” A second GoDaddy article suggests it is 67%.
See https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.godaddy... and
https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.godaddy....
There are many articles on this topic with varying figures, but they tended to generally note abandonment rates upwards of 60%.
The takeaway is that the TMCH-Claims rates observed here in the WG, while different/higher, are arguably not materially different than e-commerce statistics generally (certainly not the 20% noted by Phil Corwin as signaling “a significant difference in the completion of registration.”).
It is important here to recall too that many members of the WG have noted that (for a number of reasons) registries, registrars, and registrants may have been sending queries in large numbers, thus skewing the data upwards.
Best regards,
Brian
Brian Beckham | Head, Internet Dispute Resolution Section | WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center 34 chemin des Colombettes, 1211 Geneva 20, Switzerland | T +4122 338 8247 | E brian.beckham@wipo.int | https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=www.wipo.int&data=02%7C01...
_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.or... _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.or...
_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.or...
_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
I can support that. J. Scott Evans 408.536.5336 (tel) 345 Park Avenue, Mail Stop W11-544 Director, Trademarks 408.709.6162 (cell) San Jose, CA, 95110, USA Adobe. Make It an Experience. jsevans@adobe.com www.adobe.com On 6/9/17, 7:51 AM, "Jon Nevett" <jon@donuts.email> wrote: That's a solid idea Brian. Commission an independent research firm to do a study. That would be good at looking at different potential wordings of the notice. We should try to get the registrars to provide actual data as well. Best, Jon > On Jun 9, 2017, at 10:45 AM, Brian F. Cimbolic <BCimbolic@pir.org> wrote: > > Thanks J. Scott and understood. That being said, it seems that a running commentary from both sides of this issue is that there is no direct evidence supporting either position. Could this PDP be in a position to remedy that by asking ICANN to commission a survey/study to try to cut to the heart of the matter? Perhaps the survey could examine abandonment rates and registrant responses to receipt of the Claims notice. This is obviously in the "spitballing" phase of an idea, but it seems the only way to get over the hump on this issue is to have some objective source for all sides to look to. > > Thanks. > > Brian Cimbolic > Deputy General Counsel, Public Interest Registry > Office: +1 703 889-5752| Mobile: + 1 571 385-7871| > www.pir.org | Facebook | Twitter | Instagram | YouTube > > > Confidentiality Note: Proprietary and confidential to Public Interest Registry. If received in error, please inform sender and then delete. > > -----Original Message----- > From: J. Scott Evans [mailto:jsevans@adobe.com] > Sent: Friday, June 09, 2017 10:28 AM > To: Brian F. Cimbolic <BCimbolic@pir.org>; Rebecca Tushnet <Rebecca.Tushnet@law.georgetown.edu>; Beckham, Brian <brian.beckham@wipo.int> > Cc: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org > Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] TMCH data on abandonment > > Brain. Point taken. I don’t mean to be flippant. That said, I am growing increasing tired of there always being a negative inference from behaviors from those that are overall hostile to RPMs in general. My point is that as a proponent of RPMs and someone who worked diligently for over 9 months to come up with these RPMs that the abandonment rate does not automatically indicate that the system is not working as intended. > > > J. Scott Evans > 408.536.5336 (tel) > 345 Park Avenue, Mail Stop W11-544 > Director, Trademarks > 408.709.6162 (cell) > San Jose, CA, 95110, USA > Adobe. Make It an Experience. > jsevans@adobe.com > www.adobe.com > > > > > On 6/9/17, 7:24 AM, "Brian F. Cimbolic" <BCimbolic@pir.org> wrote: > > J. Scott, respectfully, what evidence is there that the Claims notice provided to registrants is not having a chilling effect for those with no intention to infringe? I understand there is not direct evidence on either side of the issue, but to say decisively that it is "Not so" about the chilling effect without providing some evidence seems unnecessarily flippant. > > Brian Cimbolic > Deputy General Counsel, Public Interest Registry > Office: +1 703 889-5752| Mobile: + 1 571 385-7871| > https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=www.pir.org&data=02%7C01%... | Facebook | Twitter | Instagram | YouTube > > > Confidentiality Note: Proprietary and confidential to Public Interest Registry. If received in error, please inform sender and then delete. > > -----Original Message----- > From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of J. Scott Evans via gnso-rpm-wg > Sent: Friday, June 09, 2017 10:19 AM > To: Rebecca Tushnet <Rebecca.Tushnet@law.georgetown.edu>; Beckham, Brian <brian.beckham@wipo.int> > Cc: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org > Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] TMCH data on abandonment > Importance: High > > I will remind the group that Abandonment is the point. The TM Claims notice is designed to inform would-be innocent infringers that there is an issue. A high abandonment rate show that the system is working. I realize those hostile to the TM Claims feel that a high abandonment rate is proof that the Claims notice is overreaching. Not so. > > J. Scott > > > J. Scott Evans > 408.536.5336 (tel) > 345 Park Avenue, Mail Stop W11-544 > Director, Trademarks > 408.709.6162 (cell) > San Jose, CA, 95110, USA > Adobe. Make It an Experience. > jsevans@adobe.com > www.adobe.com > > > > > On 6/9/17, 7:16 AM, "gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Rebecca Tushnet" <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Rebecca.Tushnet@law.georgetown.edu> wrote: > > I agree with Paul K. Unfortunately, we need better information than > that--we need to know about, of attempts that reached the stage at > which a notice would be provided, how many were abandoned. It's my > understanding--though I'd be happy to learn more--that the notice > wouldn't come when the shopping cart was filled but at checkout. > > If we just don't have the data, then it may be that our only > recommendation must be to get the data. > Rebecca Tushnet > Georgetown Law > 703 593 6759 > > > On Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 4:56 AM, Beckham, Brian <brian.beckham@wipo.int> wrote: >> Dear all, >> >> >> >> I’m not sure what is the right venue (i.e., in the sub-group, of which I am >> not a member, or to the full WG) to offer this, and it is offered merely to >> help fill out some of the questions/discussion around seeking various >> TMCH/Claims-related data. >> >> >> >> In the transcript for the Sub Team for Trademark Claims call on Friday, 02 >> June 2017 at 16:00 UTC, there was some discussion on abandonment rates. In >> summary: Rebeca Tushnet suggested it would be helpful to compare >> non-TMCH-related abandonment vs “regular” abandonment. Jeff Neuman recalled >> that during the BIZ launch there was a high abandonment. Phil Corwin >> suggested that if the non-TMCH-related abandonment rate was 80% then it may >> be reasonable to conclude that there’s not a material difference between >> those subject to claims notices. >> >> >> >> Mindful that it may be difficult or even impossible to obtain the desired >> data (a number of reasons, including competitive (dis-)advantages, were >> raised on the call), a recent GoDaddy post informs us that “An average >> website loses 69 percent of sales to abandoned carts.” A second GoDaddy >> article suggests it is 67%. >> >> >> >> See >> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.godaddy... >> and >> >> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.godaddy.... >> >> >> >> There are many articles on this topic with varying figures, but they tended >> to generally note abandonment rates upwards of 60%. >> >> >> >> The takeaway is that the TMCH-Claims rates observed here in the WG, while >> different/higher, are arguably not materially different than e-commerce >> statistics generally (certainly not the 20% noted by Phil Corwin as >> signaling “a significant difference in the completion of registration.”). >> >> >> >> It is important here to recall too that many members of the WG have noted >> that (for a number of reasons) registries, registrars, and registrants may >> have been sending queries in large numbers, thus skewing the data upwards. >> >> >> >> Best regards, >> >> >> >> Brian >> >> >> >> Brian Beckham | Head, Internet Dispute Resolution Section | WIPO Arbitration >> and Mediation Center >> 34 chemin des Colombettes, 1211 Geneva 20, Switzerland | T +4122 338 8247 | >> E brian.beckham@wipo.int | https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=www.wipo.int&data=02%7C01... >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> gnso-rpm-wg mailing list >> gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org >> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.or... > _______________________________________________ > gnso-rpm-wg mailing list > gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org > https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.or... > > _______________________________________________ > gnso-rpm-wg mailing list > gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org > https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.or... > > > _______________________________________________ > gnso-rpm-wg mailing list > gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
My recollection is that the Analysis Group could not obtain the data to determine a cart abandonment rate caused by the claims notice, that registrars were the only ones in a position to collect such data, and that registrars did not collect the data and did not have (either) the wherewithal or desire (I forget which one) to collect it retrospectively. We can ask for a study, but I am pretty darned sure the information we want is not available. We have no data on this issue to guide the discussion. However, building on Brian’s suggestion, this group should specify the data needed to measure RPM benefits and costs going forward. I think it is included in the ICANN process that any PDP should include data gathering requirements to measure the PDP’s effectiveness. To my knowledge, that has never been done and certainly not done in the case of RPMs. (Pretty exciting stuff on these lists recently.) Kurt ________________ Kurt Pritz kurt@kjpritz.com +1.310.400.4184 Skype: kjpritz
On Jun 9, 2017, at 3:45 PM, Brian F. Cimbolic <BCimbolic@pir.org> wrote:
Thanks J. Scott and understood. That being said, it seems that a running commentary from both sides of this issue is that there is no direct evidence supporting either position. Could this PDP be in a position to remedy that by asking ICANN to commission a survey/study to try to cut to the heart of the matter? Perhaps the survey could examine abandonment rates and registrant responses to receipt of the Claims notice. This is obviously in the "spitballing" phase of an idea, but it seems the only way to get over the hump on this issue is to have some objective source for all sides to look to.
Thanks.
Brian Cimbolic Deputy General Counsel, Public Interest Registry Office: +1 703 889-5752| Mobile: + 1 571 385-7871| www.pir.org | Facebook | Twitter | Instagram | YouTube
Confidentiality Note: Proprietary and confidential to Public Interest Registry. If received in error, please inform sender and then delete.
-----Original Message----- From: J. Scott Evans [mailto:jsevans@adobe.com] Sent: Friday, June 09, 2017 10:28 AM To: Brian F. Cimbolic <BCimbolic@pir.org>; Rebecca Tushnet <Rebecca.Tushnet@law.georgetown.edu>; Beckham, Brian <brian.beckham@wipo.int> Cc: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] TMCH data on abandonment
Brain. Point taken. I don’t mean to be flippant. That said, I am growing increasing tired of there always being a negative inference from behaviors from those that are overall hostile to RPMs in general. My point is that as a proponent of RPMs and someone who worked diligently for over 9 months to come up with these RPMs that the abandonment rate does not automatically indicate that the system is not working as intended.
J. Scott Evans 408.536.5336 (tel) 345 Park Avenue, Mail Stop W11-544 Director, Trademarks 408.709.6162 (cell) San Jose, CA, 95110, USA Adobe. Make It an Experience. jsevans@adobe.com www.adobe.com
On 6/9/17, 7:24 AM, "Brian F. Cimbolic" <BCimbolic@pir.org> wrote:
J. Scott, respectfully, what evidence is there that the Claims notice provided to registrants is not having a chilling effect for those with no intention to infringe? I understand there is not direct evidence on either side of the issue, but to say decisively that it is "Not so" about the chilling effect without providing some evidence seems unnecessarily flippant.
Brian Cimbolic Deputy General Counsel, Public Interest Registry Office: +1 703 889-5752| Mobile: + 1 571 385-7871| https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=www.pir.org&data=02%7C01%... | Facebook | Twitter | Instagram | YouTube
Confidentiality Note: Proprietary and confidential to Public Interest Registry. If received in error, please inform sender and then delete.
-----Original Message----- From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of J. Scott Evans via gnso-rpm-wg Sent: Friday, June 09, 2017 10:19 AM To: Rebecca Tushnet <Rebecca.Tushnet@law.georgetown.edu>; Beckham, Brian <brian.beckham@wipo.int> Cc: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] TMCH data on abandonment Importance: High
I will remind the group that Abandonment is the point. The TM Claims notice is designed to inform would-be innocent infringers that there is an issue. A high abandonment rate show that the system is working. I realize those hostile to the TM Claims feel that a high abandonment rate is proof that the Claims notice is overreaching. Not so.
J. Scott
J. Scott Evans 408.536.5336 (tel) 345 Park Avenue, Mail Stop W11-544 Director, Trademarks 408.709.6162 (cell) San Jose, CA, 95110, USA Adobe. Make It an Experience. jsevans@adobe.com www.adobe.com
On 6/9/17, 7:16 AM, "gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Rebecca Tushnet" <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Rebecca.Tushnet@law.georgetown.edu> wrote:
I agree with Paul K. Unfortunately, we need better information than that--we need to know about, of attempts that reached the stage at which a notice would be provided, how many were abandoned. It's my understanding--though I'd be happy to learn more--that the notice wouldn't come when the shopping cart was filled but at checkout.
If we just don't have the data, then it may be that our only recommendation must be to get the data. Rebecca Tushnet Georgetown Law 703 593 6759
On Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 4:56 AM, Beckham, Brian <brian.beckham@wipo.int> wrote:
Dear all,
I’m not sure what is the right venue (i.e., in the sub-group, of which I am not a member, or to the full WG) to offer this, and it is offered merely to help fill out some of the questions/discussion around seeking various TMCH/Claims-related data.
In the transcript for the Sub Team for Trademark Claims call on Friday, 02 June 2017 at 16:00 UTC, there was some discussion on abandonment rates. In summary: Rebeca Tushnet suggested it would be helpful to compare non-TMCH-related abandonment vs “regular” abandonment. Jeff Neuman recalled that during the BIZ launch there was a high abandonment. Phil Corwin suggested that if the non-TMCH-related abandonment rate was 80% then it may be reasonable to conclude that there’s not a material difference between those subject to claims notices.
Mindful that it may be difficult or even impossible to obtain the desired data (a number of reasons, including competitive (dis-)advantages, were raised on the call), a recent GoDaddy post informs us that “An average website loses 69 percent of sales to abandoned carts.” A second GoDaddy article suggests it is 67%.
See https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.godaddy... and
https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.godaddy....
There are many articles on this topic with varying figures, but they tended to generally note abandonment rates upwards of 60%.
The takeaway is that the TMCH-Claims rates observed here in the WG, while different/higher, are arguably not materially different than e-commerce statistics generally (certainly not the 20% noted by Phil Corwin as signaling “a significant difference in the completion of registration.”).
It is important here to recall too that many members of the WG have noted that (for a number of reasons) registries, registrars, and registrants may have been sending queries in large numbers, thus skewing the data upwards.
Best regards,
Brian
Brian Beckham | Head, Internet Dispute Resolution Section | WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center 34 chemin des Colombettes, 1211 Geneva 20, Switzerland | T +4122 338 8247 | E brian.beckham@wipo.int | https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=www.wipo.int&data=02%7C01...
_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.or... _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.or...
_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.or...
_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
Hi folks, On Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 10:56 AM, Kurt Pritz <kurt@kjpritz.com> wrote:
We can ask for a study, but I am pretty darned sure the information we want is not available. We have no data on this issue to guide the discussion.
There actual *is* a source of data that can help determine whether there is a significant difference caused by the TM Claims notice, in particular, the monthly ICANN Registry reports: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/registry-reports Let's pick out an example report, for .xyz in Feb 2017: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/xyz-2014-06-19-en There's a transactions report: https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/mrr/xyz/xyz-transactions-201702-en... which has columns which include not just "net adds" (new domains registered), but more importantly "attempted-adds". One can take the ratio of adds vs attempted adds (across all registrars, or filtering for some that might exclude outliers) and use that as a proxy for a "conversion rate", and compare that over time, and across multiple TLDs. If folks are familiar with the concept of "event studies": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Event_study http://www.investopedia.com/terms/e/eventstudy.asp http://www.bauer.uh.edu/rsusmel/phd/lecture%206.pdf http://web.mit.edu/doncram/www/eventstudy.html used in empirical research, the "event" is essentially the ending of the claims period (i.e. if there's an impact, we should see a statistical difference in the above ratio in the period from 0-3 months after GA when the Claims Notices are shown to registrants, and in the period 4 months+ after GA when the Claims Notices are NOT shown to registrants. We have time series data, and a cross-section of TLDs (akin to different "stocks", when those are financial event studies). One would have to make some minor adjustments to take into account that the end of the claims notices doesn't fall "neatly" at the exact end of a month. And of course the first month of the GA (where there's much more activity after a launch) might be expected to be different from months 2 and 3, in terms of those averages. But, probably months 2 and 3 should be "normal" for a claims notice effect, and months 4 and beyond "normal" for a non-claims notice effect. One would also need to take into account possible effects from GA "anniversary dates" (i.e. GA+12 months, +24 months, +36 months), where data might be skewed somewhat by large amounts of expiring domain names ("drop catching" might impact "attempted adds", if they're automated inquiries). So, I do believe we do have a valuable and valid source of data *now*, namely running an event study with the above data and methodology, comparing adds to attempted adds using each of the registry's public historical data provided to ICANN in the monthly reports. It can even be compared against .com/net/org/biz/info etc., which have no claims notice at all, to see if there are statistical differences. It's a lot of grunt work (I won't be doing it), but something a graduate statistics/econometrics student would be capable of doing easily. All the data is already in electronic form, too (although, one would need to get exact "GA" dates from the registry operators or ICANN, or IBM/Deloitte, to calculate GA+3 months properly). It's not as "direct" as getting the data directly from registrars (I'm not sure why they'd not share that data; they can either do it anonymously, or just share the "change", without sharing their actual cart abandonment data), but it should suffice, to help solve the question *now*, in this PDP, rather than waiting another 10 or 20 years. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
P.S. Depending on the exact mechanics of the Claims Notices from a registry's perspective (perhaps the registries can chime in), if some "adds" are in a pending state for a few hours/days, etc., pending acceptance of the Claims Notice by the prospective registrant, and then are later *deleted*, then domain deletion statistics in those first 3 months might be a secondary source of data, if those were reported to ICANN, and/or kept track privately by individual registry operators. The same "event study" methodology would be employed. For those not familiar with the event studies, think of it kind of like an A/B study, where the "A" and "B" are different time periods surrounding "the event", and all the time-series/cross-section data is "shifted" to be able to compare apples to apples and oranges to oranges (i.e. you're recalibrating all the data, so that the "event" is the only major variable that is changing, and all the other variables get averaged out as random noise that is uncorrelated to the event being studied). Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ On Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 11:23 AM, George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote:
Hi folks,
On Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 10:56 AM, Kurt Pritz <kurt@kjpritz.com> wrote:
We can ask for a study, but I am pretty darned sure the information we want is not available. We have no data on this issue to guide the discussion.
There actual *is* a source of data that can help determine whether there is a significant difference caused by the TM Claims notice, in particular, the monthly ICANN Registry reports:
https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/registry-reports
Let's pick out an example report, for .xyz in Feb 2017:
https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/xyz-2014-06-19-en
There's a transactions report:
https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/mrr/xyz/xyz-transactions-201702-en...
which has columns which include not just "net adds" (new domains registered), but more importantly "attempted-adds".
One can take the ratio of adds vs attempted adds (across all registrars, or filtering for some that might exclude outliers) and use that as a proxy for a "conversion rate", and compare that over time, and across multiple TLDs.
If folks are familiar with the concept of "event studies":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Event_study http://www.investopedia.com/terms/e/eventstudy.asp http://www.bauer.uh.edu/rsusmel/phd/lecture%206.pdf http://web.mit.edu/doncram/www/eventstudy.html
used in empirical research, the "event" is essentially the ending of the claims period (i.e. if there's an impact, we should see a statistical difference in the above ratio in the period from 0-3 months after GA when the Claims Notices are shown to registrants, and in the period 4 months+ after GA when the Claims Notices are NOT shown to registrants. We have time series data, and a cross-section of TLDs (akin to different "stocks", when those are financial event studies).
One would have to make some minor adjustments to take into account that the end of the claims notices doesn't fall "neatly" at the exact end of a month. And of course the first month of the GA (where there's much more activity after a launch) might be expected to be different from months 2 and 3, in terms of those averages. But, probably months 2 and 3 should be "normal" for a claims notice effect, and months 4 and beyond "normal" for a non-claims notice effect. One would also need to take into account possible effects from GA "anniversary dates" (i.e. GA+12 months, +24 months, +36 months), where data might be skewed somewhat by large amounts of expiring domain names ("drop catching" might impact "attempted adds", if they're automated inquiries).
So, I do believe we do have a valuable and valid source of data *now*, namely running an event study with the above data and methodology, comparing adds to attempted adds using each of the registry's public historical data provided to ICANN in the monthly reports. It can even be compared against .com/net/org/biz/info etc., which have no claims notice at all, to see if there are statistical differences.
It's a lot of grunt work (I won't be doing it), but something a graduate statistics/econometrics student would be capable of doing easily. All the data is already in electronic form, too (although, one would need to get exact "GA" dates from the registry operators or ICANN, or IBM/Deloitte, to calculate GA+3 months properly).
It's not as "direct" as getting the data directly from registrars (I'm not sure why they'd not share that data; they can either do it anonymously, or just share the "change", without sharing their actual cart abandonment data), but it should suffice, to help solve the question *now*, in this PDP, rather than waiting another 10 or 20 years.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
P.P.S. Actually, there might even be a *3rd* source of public registry data, besides adds/attempted adds and deletions data. Namely "check availability" data, which might be a column at: https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/mrr/xyz/xyz-activity-201702-en.csv If the ratio of total "check availability" queries to the registry (especially if that can be filtered to show "yes, the domain name is available" vs "domain reserved/already registered) is compared to successful adds, that's another time series/cross-section data source that is perfect for an event study, to compare in the claims notice periods vs. the period afterwards when the domain can simply be registered without the claims notices appearing). If it's not public, some registries might want to share it (probably less "sensitive" to them than cart abandonment ratios might be to registrars, given registry operators don't have much control over those ratios and aren't going to be "judged" by those ratios in the marketplace). Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ On Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 11:47 AM, George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote:
P.S. Depending on the exact mechanics of the Claims Notices from a registry's perspective (perhaps the registries can chime in), if some "adds" are in a pending state for a few hours/days, etc., pending acceptance of the Claims Notice by the prospective registrant, and then are later *deleted*, then domain deletion statistics in those first 3 months might be a secondary source of data, if those were reported to ICANN, and/or kept track privately by individual registry operators.
The same "event study" methodology would be employed. For those not familiar with the event studies, think of it kind of like an A/B study, where the "A" and "B" are different time periods surrounding "the event", and all the time-series/cross-section data is "shifted" to be able to compare apples to apples and oranges to oranges (i.e. you're recalibrating all the data, so that the "event" is the only major variable that is changing, and all the other variables get averaged out as random noise that is uncorrelated to the event being studied).
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
On Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 11:23 AM, George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote:
Hi folks,
On Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 10:56 AM, Kurt Pritz <kurt@kjpritz.com> wrote:
We can ask for a study, but I am pretty darned sure the information we want is not available. We have no data on this issue to guide the discussion.
There actual *is* a source of data that can help determine whether there is a significant difference caused by the TM Claims notice, in particular, the monthly ICANN Registry reports:
https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/registry-reports
Let's pick out an example report, for .xyz in Feb 2017:
https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/xyz-2014-06-19-en
There's a transactions report:
https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/mrr/xyz/xyz-transactions-201702-en...
which has columns which include not just "net adds" (new domains registered), but more importantly "attempted-adds".
One can take the ratio of adds vs attempted adds (across all registrars, or filtering for some that might exclude outliers) and use that as a proxy for a "conversion rate", and compare that over time, and across multiple TLDs.
If folks are familiar with the concept of "event studies":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Event_study http://www.investopedia.com/terms/e/eventstudy.asp http://www.bauer.uh.edu/rsusmel/phd/lecture%206.pdf http://web.mit.edu/doncram/www/eventstudy.html
used in empirical research, the "event" is essentially the ending of the claims period (i.e. if there's an impact, we should see a statistical difference in the above ratio in the period from 0-3 months after GA when the Claims Notices are shown to registrants, and in the period 4 months+ after GA when the Claims Notices are NOT shown to registrants. We have time series data, and a cross-section of TLDs (akin to different "stocks", when those are financial event studies).
One would have to make some minor adjustments to take into account that the end of the claims notices doesn't fall "neatly" at the exact end of a month. And of course the first month of the GA (where there's much more activity after a launch) might be expected to be different from months 2 and 3, in terms of those averages. But, probably months 2 and 3 should be "normal" for a claims notice effect, and months 4 and beyond "normal" for a non-claims notice effect. One would also need to take into account possible effects from GA "anniversary dates" (i.e. GA+12 months, +24 months, +36 months), where data might be skewed somewhat by large amounts of expiring domain names ("drop catching" might impact "attempted adds", if they're automated inquiries).
So, I do believe we do have a valuable and valid source of data *now*, namely running an event study with the above data and methodology, comparing adds to attempted adds using each of the registry's public historical data provided to ICANN in the monthly reports. It can even be compared against .com/net/org/biz/info etc., which have no claims notice at all, to see if there are statistical differences.
It's a lot of grunt work (I won't be doing it), but something a graduate statistics/econometrics student would be capable of doing easily. All the data is already in electronic form, too (although, one would need to get exact "GA" dates from the registry operators or ICANN, or IBM/Deloitte, to calculate GA+3 months properly).
It's not as "direct" as getting the data directly from registrars (I'm not sure why they'd not share that data; they can either do it anonymously, or just share the "change", without sharing their actual cart abandonment data), but it should suffice, to help solve the question *now*, in this PDP, rather than waiting another 10 or 20 years.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
Hi folks, On Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 10:28 AM, J. Scott Evans via gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> wrote:
Brain. Point taken. I don’t mean to be flippant. That said, I am growing increasing tired of there always being a negative inference from behaviors from those that are overall hostile to RPMs in general. My point is that as a proponent of RPMs and someone who worked diligently for over 9 months to come up with these RPMs that the abandonment rate does not automatically indicate that the system is not working as intended.
That doesn't make any sense at all to me. A few minutes ago, I quoted from point #1 of the email at: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2017-May/001949.html Let me now quote from #2: 2. "Please be civil to your fellow members and ****try to focus any criticisms on the substance of a proposal or assertion and not on the person who made it.****" (emphasis added) Instead of addressing the *assertion*, you attack those who make the points, stating "a negative inference from behaviors from those that are overall hostile to RPMs in general." Here's a startling fact: one can be against cybersquatting, but also be against bad policies that attempt to address it. So, don't assume "hostility" towards a certain policy isn't justified, and attempt to misdirect things by focusing on the person making the post, rather than the substance. To compound that, you then write "as a proponent of RPMs and someone who worked diligently for over 9 months to come up with these RPMs" --- why does that even matter? That's the other side of the coin, so to speak, of point #2, focusing on who is making the assertion and attempting to give it more weight. I would suggest that indeed, the people who were the architects of the plans might be the last people who should be reviewing it, as it is inherently biased. Read this as "I reviewed my own work, and found it to be amazing." How credible is that? Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
There can be a significant drop-off due the necessity to present this notice seperate from the purchase process. Examples: 1) Potential Registrant pre-orders a domain: the notice cannot be presented at the time of purchase 2) Potential Registrant orders the domain through a reseller with its own front-end: the notice cannot be presented by the registrar in the purchase process Result => Notice has to be presented after the order is received but before it is executed in an alternate process, usually email. While we have not at the time measured the actual rate, we did note a significant drop-off between the numbers of registrants directed to visit a website where the notice could be presented and confirmed and the number of mails sent. The drop-off between the number of customers visiting the site, seeing the notice and then deciding not to pursue the registration was smaller. Conclusion: The current noticeconfirmation process that is supposed to be in the registration path does not work well in real life for many industry sales channel. Best, Volker Am 09.06.2017 um 16:28 schrieb J. Scott Evans via gnso-rpm-wg:
Brain. Point taken. I don’t mean to be flippant. That said, I am growing increasing tired of there always being a negative inference from behaviors from those that are overall hostile to RPMs in general. My point is that as a proponent of RPMs and someone who worked diligently for over 9 months to come up with these RPMs that the abandonment rate does not automatically indicate that the system is not working as intended.
J. Scott Evans 408.536.5336 (tel) 345 Park Avenue, Mail Stop W11-544 Director, Trademarks 408.709.6162 (cell) San Jose, CA, 95110, USA Adobe. Make It an Experience. jsevans@adobe.com www.adobe.com
On 6/9/17, 7:24 AM, "Brian F. Cimbolic" <BCimbolic@pir.org> wrote:
J. Scott, respectfully, what evidence is there that the Claims notice provided to registrants is not having a chilling effect for those with no intention to infringe? I understand there is not direct evidence on either side of the issue, but to say decisively that it is "Not so" about the chilling effect without providing some evidence seems unnecessarily flippant.
Brian Cimbolic Deputy General Counsel, Public Interest Registry Office: +1 703 889-5752| Mobile: + 1 571 385-7871| https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=www.pir.org&data=02%7C01%... | Facebook | Twitter | Instagram | YouTube
Confidentiality Note: Proprietary and confidential to Public Interest Registry. If received in error, please inform sender and then delete.
-----Original Message----- From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of J. Scott Evans via gnso-rpm-wg Sent: Friday, June 09, 2017 10:19 AM To: Rebecca Tushnet <Rebecca.Tushnet@law.georgetown.edu>; Beckham, Brian <brian.beckham@wipo.int> Cc: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] TMCH data on abandonment Importance: High
I will remind the group that Abandonment is the point. The TM Claims notice is designed to inform would-be innocent infringers that there is an issue. A high abandonment rate show that the system is working. I realize those hostile to the TM Claims feel that a high abandonment rate is proof that the Claims notice is overreaching. Not so.
J. Scott
J. Scott Evans 408.536.5336 (tel) 345 Park Avenue, Mail Stop W11-544 Director, Trademarks 408.709.6162 (cell) San Jose, CA, 95110, USA Adobe. Make It an Experience. jsevans@adobe.com www.adobe.com
On 6/9/17, 7:16 AM, "gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Rebecca Tushnet" <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Rebecca.Tushnet@law.georgetown.edu> wrote:
I agree with Paul K. Unfortunately, we need better information than that--we need to know about, of attempts that reached the stage at which a notice would be provided, how many were abandoned. It's my understanding--though I'd be happy to learn more--that the notice wouldn't come when the shopping cart was filled but at checkout.
If we just don't have the data, then it may be that our only recommendation must be to get the data. Rebecca Tushnet Georgetown Law 703 593 6759
On Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 4:56 AM, Beckham, Brian <brian.beckham@wipo.int> wrote: > Dear all, > > > > I’m not sure what is the right venue (i.e., in the sub-group, of which I am > not a member, or to the full WG) to offer this, and it is offered merely to > help fill out some of the questions/discussion around seeking various > TMCH/Claims-related data. > > > > In the transcript for the Sub Team for Trademark Claims call on Friday, 02 > June 2017 at 16:00 UTC, there was some discussion on abandonment rates. In > summary: Rebeca Tushnet suggested it would be helpful to compare > non-TMCH-related abandonment vs “regular” abandonment. Jeff Neuman recalled > that during the BIZ launch there was a high abandonment. Phil Corwin > suggested that if the non-TMCH-related abandonment rate was 80% then it may > be reasonable to conclude that there’s not a material difference between > those subject to claims notices. > > > > Mindful that it may be difficult or even impossible to obtain the desired > data (a number of reasons, including competitive (dis-)advantages, were > raised on the call), a recent GoDaddy post informs us that “An average > website loses 69 percent of sales to abandoned carts.” A second GoDaddy > article suggests it is 67%. > > > > See > https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.godaddy... > and > > https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.godaddy.... > > > > There are many articles on this topic with varying figures, but they tended > to generally note abandonment rates upwards of 60%. > > > > The takeaway is that the TMCH-Claims rates observed here in the WG, while > different/higher, are arguably not materially different than e-commerce > statistics generally (certainly not the 20% noted by Phil Corwin as > signaling “a significant difference in the completion of registration.”). > > > > It is important here to recall too that many members of the WG have noted > that (for a number of reasons) registries, registrars, and registrants may > have been sending queries in large numbers, thus skewing the data upwards. > > > > Best regards, > > > > Brian > > > > Brian Beckham | Head, Internet Dispute Resolution Section | WIPO Arbitration > and Mediation Center > 34 chemin des Colombettes, 1211 Geneva 20, Switzerland | T +4122 338 8247 | > E brian.beckham@wipo.int | https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=www.wipo.int&data=02%7C01... > > > > > _______________________________________________ > gnso-rpm-wg mailing list > gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org > https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.or... _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.or...
_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.or...
_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
-- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.twitter.com/key_systems Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.twitter.com/key_systems CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.
Volker: Thanks for this perspective. I know that my marketing team struggles with what they call “stickiness” of a registration process. Specifically, they are always looking for ways to streamline the registration process because the “stickier” the process (the more steps need to complete registration) leads to a high drop off rate. Your antidotal evidence certainly aligns with the same type of situation my folks at Adobe find difficult in selling our subscriptions. J. Scott Evans 408.536.5336 (tel) 345 Park Avenue, Mail Stop W11-544 Director, Trademarks 408.709.6162 (cell) San Jose, CA, 95110, USA Adobe. Make It an Experience. jsevans@adobe.com www.adobe.com On 6/9/17, 7:52 AM, "gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Volker Greimann" <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org on behalf of vgreimann@key-systems.net> wrote: There can be a significant drop-off due the necessity to present this notice seperate from the purchase process. Examples: 1) Potential Registrant pre-orders a domain: the notice cannot be presented at the time of purchase 2) Potential Registrant orders the domain through a reseller with its own front-end: the notice cannot be presented by the registrar in the purchase process Result => Notice has to be presented after the order is received but before it is executed in an alternate process, usually email. While we have not at the time measured the actual rate, we did note a significant drop-off between the numbers of registrants directed to visit a website where the notice could be presented and confirmed and the number of mails sent. The drop-off between the number of customers visiting the site, seeing the notice and then deciding not to pursue the registration was smaller. Conclusion: The current noticeconfirmation process that is supposed to be in the registration path does not work well in real life for many industry sales channel. Best, Volker Am 09.06.2017 um 16:28 schrieb J. Scott Evans via gnso-rpm-wg: > Brain. Point taken. I don’t mean to be flippant. That said, I am growing increasing tired of there always being a negative inference from behaviors from those that are overall hostile to RPMs in general. My point is that as a proponent of RPMs and someone who worked diligently for over 9 months to come up with these RPMs that the abandonment rate does not automatically indicate that the system is not working as intended. > > > J. Scott Evans > 408.536.5336 (tel) > 345 Park Avenue, Mail Stop W11-544 > Director, Trademarks > 408.709.6162 (cell) > San Jose, CA, 95110, USA > Adobe. Make It an Experience. > jsevans@adobe.com > www.adobe.com > > > > > On 6/9/17, 7:24 AM, "Brian F. Cimbolic" <BCimbolic@pir.org> wrote: > > J. Scott, respectfully, what evidence is there that the Claims notice provided to registrants is not having a chilling effect for those with no intention to infringe? I understand there is not direct evidence on either side of the issue, but to say decisively that it is "Not so" about the chilling effect without providing some evidence seems unnecessarily flippant. > > Brian Cimbolic > Deputy General Counsel, Public Interest Registry > Office: +1 703 889-5752| Mobile: + 1 571 385-7871| > https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=www.pir.org&data=02%7C01%... | Facebook | Twitter | Instagram | YouTube > > > Confidentiality Note: Proprietary and confidential to Public Interest Registry. If received in error, please inform sender and then delete. > > -----Original Message----- > From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of J. Scott Evans via gnso-rpm-wg > Sent: Friday, June 09, 2017 10:19 AM > To: Rebecca Tushnet <Rebecca.Tushnet@law.georgetown.edu>; Beckham, Brian <brian.beckham@wipo.int> > Cc: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org > Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] TMCH data on abandonment > Importance: High > > I will remind the group that Abandonment is the point. The TM Claims notice is designed to inform would-be innocent infringers that there is an issue. A high abandonment rate show that the system is working. I realize those hostile to the TM Claims feel that a high abandonment rate is proof that the Claims notice is overreaching. Not so. > > J. Scott > > > J. Scott Evans > 408.536.5336 (tel) > 345 Park Avenue, Mail Stop W11-544 > Director, Trademarks > 408.709.6162 (cell) > San Jose, CA, 95110, USA > Adobe. Make It an Experience. > jsevans@adobe.com > www.adobe.com > > > > > On 6/9/17, 7:16 AM, "gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Rebecca Tushnet" <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Rebecca.Tushnet@law.georgetown.edu> wrote: > > I agree with Paul K. Unfortunately, we need better information than > that--we need to know about, of attempts that reached the stage at > which a notice would be provided, how many were abandoned. It's my > understanding--though I'd be happy to learn more--that the notice > wouldn't come when the shopping cart was filled but at checkout. > > If we just don't have the data, then it may be that our only > recommendation must be to get the data. > Rebecca Tushnet > Georgetown Law > 703 593 6759 > > > On Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 4:56 AM, Beckham, Brian <brian.beckham@wipo.int> wrote: > > Dear all, > > > > > > > > I’m not sure what is the right venue (i.e., in the sub-group, of which I am > > not a member, or to the full WG) to offer this, and it is offered merely to > > help fill out some of the questions/discussion around seeking various > > TMCH/Claims-related data. > > > > > > > > In the transcript for the Sub Team for Trademark Claims call on Friday, 02 > > June 2017 at 16:00 UTC, there was some discussion on abandonment rates. In > > summary: Rebeca Tushnet suggested it would be helpful to compare > > non-TMCH-related abandonment vs “regular” abandonment. Jeff Neuman recalled > > that during the BIZ launch there was a high abandonment. Phil Corwin > > suggested that if the non-TMCH-related abandonment rate was 80% then it may > > be reasonable to conclude that there’s not a material difference between > > those subject to claims notices. > > > > > > > > Mindful that it may be difficult or even impossible to obtain the desired > > data (a number of reasons, including competitive (dis-)advantages, were > > raised on the call), a recent GoDaddy post informs us that “An average > > website loses 69 percent of sales to abandoned carts.” A second GoDaddy > > article suggests it is 67%. > > > > > > > > See > > https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.godaddy... > > and > > > > https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.godaddy.... > > > > > > > > There are many articles on this topic with varying figures, but they tended > > to generally note abandonment rates upwards of 60%. > > > > > > > > The takeaway is that the TMCH-Claims rates observed here in the WG, while > > different/higher, are arguably not materially different than e-commerce > > statistics generally (certainly not the 20% noted by Phil Corwin as > > signaling “a significant difference in the completion of registration.”). > > > > > > > > It is important here to recall too that many members of the WG have noted > > that (for a number of reasons) registries, registrars, and registrants may > > have been sending queries in large numbers, thus skewing the data upwards. > > > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > > > > > Brian > > > > > > > > Brian Beckham | Head, Internet Dispute Resolution Section | WIPO Arbitration > > and Mediation Center > > 34 chemin des Colombettes, 1211 Geneva 20, Switzerland | T +4122 338 8247 | > > E brian.beckham@wipo.int | https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=www.wipo.int&data=02%7C01... > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > gnso-rpm-wg mailing list > > gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org > > https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.or... > _______________________________________________ > gnso-rpm-wg mailing list > gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org > https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.or... > > _______________________________________________ > gnso-rpm-wg mailing list > gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org > https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.or... > > > _______________________________________________ > gnso-rpm-wg mailing list > gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org > https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.or... -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net Web: https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=www.key-systems.net&data=... / https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=www.RRPproxy.net&data=02%... https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=www.domaindiscount24.com&... / https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=www.BrandShelter.com&data... Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=www.facebook.com%2FKeySys... https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=www.twitter.com%2Fkey_sys... Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=www.keydrive.lu&data=02%7... Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net Web: https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=www.key-systems.net&data=... / https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=www.RRPproxy.net&data=02%... https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=www.domaindiscount24.com&... / https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=www.BrandShelter.com&data... Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=www.facebook.com%2FKeySys... https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=www.twitter.com%2Fkey_sys... CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=www.keydrive.lu&data=02%7... This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone. _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.or...
I agree that our recommendations should include suggested data collection and metrics. The data desert we are wandering in needs to be irrigated so that it will bloom. I think Brian's data is helpful in that it provides some real data on a baseline of abandonment. Not enough to make conclusions but it provides some sense of a typical abandonment rate. I think Volker points out an implementation problem, but one that deserves better understanding -- why are some notices not able to be generated in the "normal" path? Where does the problem lie? This may make more sense to discuss when we reach discussion of the Claims Notice. So far, it's still my personal impression is that we don't have enough data to draw any conclusions regarding abandonment and its causes (Trademark Notice vs. Other Reasons, "Good" Chilling Effect v. "Bad" Chilling Effect). FYI FWIW, hotel.xyz is available as a premium domain at the low, low price of $3,249.99 (Cheap! At least by comparison to hotel.design or hotel.party, which are $6,499.99) Also FYI, the owner of cloud.xyz (which seems to resolve to a blank page) is: Registrant Name: Zhang Guo Registrant Organization: Zhang Guo Registrant Street: You Yi Lu 71Hao Registrant City: QHDS Registrant State/Province: HBS Registrant Postal Code: 066000 Registrant Country: CN Registrant Phone: +86.13031887567 Registrant Fax: +86.13031887567 Registrant Email: saik56@163.com Registry Admin ID: C123319878-CNIC G reg On Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 11:00 AM, J. Scott Evans via gnso-rpm-wg < gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> wrote:
Volker:
Thanks for this perspective. I know that my marketing team struggles with what they call “stickiness” of a registration process. Specifically, they are always looking for ways to streamline the registration process because the “stickier” the process (the more steps need to complete registration) leads to a high drop off rate. Your antidotal evidence certainly aligns with the same type of situation my folks at Adobe find difficult in selling our subscriptions.
J. Scott Evans 408.536.5336 (tel) 345 Park Avenue, Mail Stop W11-544 Director, Trademarks 408.709.6162 (cell) San Jose, CA, 95110, USA Adobe. Make It an Experience. jsevans@adobe.com www.adobe.com
On 6/9/17, 7:52 AM, "gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Volker Greimann" <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org on behalf of vgreimann@key-systems.net> wrote:
There can be a significant drop-off due the necessity to present this notice seperate from the purchase process.
Examples:
1) Potential Registrant pre-orders a domain: the notice cannot be presented at the time of purchase
2) Potential Registrant orders the domain through a reseller with its own front-end: the notice cannot be presented by the registrar in the purchase process
Result => Notice has to be presented after the order is received but before it is executed in an alternate process, usually email. While we have not at the time measured the actual rate, we did note a significant drop-off between the numbers of registrants directed to visit a website where the notice could be presented and confirmed and the number of mails sent. The drop-off between the number of customers visiting the site, seeing the notice and then deciding not to pursue the registration was smaller.
Conclusion: The current noticeconfirmation process that is supposed to be in the registration path does not work well in real life for many industry sales channel.
Best,
Volker
Am 09.06.2017 um 16:28 schrieb J. Scott Evans via gnso-rpm-wg: > Brain. Point taken. I don’t mean to be flippant. That said, I am growing increasing tired of there always being a negative inference from behaviors from those that are overall hostile to RPMs in general. My point is that as a proponent of RPMs and someone who worked diligently for over 9 months to come up with these RPMs that the abandonment rate does not automatically indicate that the system is not working as intended. > > > J. Scott Evans > 408.536.5336 (tel) > 345 Park Avenue, Mail Stop W11-544 > Director, Trademarks > 408.709.6162 (cell) > San Jose, CA, 95110, USA > Adobe. Make It an Experience. > jsevans@adobe.com > www.adobe.com > > > > > On 6/9/17, 7:24 AM, "Brian F. Cimbolic" <BCimbolic@pir.org> wrote: > > J. Scott, respectfully, what evidence is there that the Claims notice provided to registrants is not having a chilling effect for those with no intention to infringe? I understand there is not direct evidence on either side of the issue, but to say decisively that it is "Not so" about the chilling effect without providing some evidence seems unnecessarily flippant. > > Brian Cimbolic > Deputy General Counsel, Public Interest Registry > Office: +1 703 889-5752| Mobile: + 1 571 385-7871| > https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url= www.pir.org&data=02%7C01%7C%7C01683e8ee1db418bc47108d4af4346a4% 7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636326150869181271&sdata= h8qAN8le9SbhQvR0IawnyuRDu%2Fb1%2Bv2fpfbG6MNipug%3D&reserved=0 | Facebook | Twitter | Instagram | YouTube > > > Confidentiality Note: Proprietary and confidential to Public Interest Registry. If received in error, please inform sender and then delete. > > -----Original Message----- > From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of J. Scott Evans via gnso-rpm-wg > Sent: Friday, June 09, 2017 10:19 AM > To: Rebecca Tushnet <Rebecca.Tushnet@law.georgetown.edu>; Beckham, Brian <brian.beckham@wipo.int> > Cc: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org > Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] TMCH data on abandonment > Importance: High > > I will remind the group that Abandonment is the point. The TM Claims notice is designed to inform would-be innocent infringers that there is an issue. A high abandonment rate show that the system is working. I realize those hostile to the TM Claims feel that a high abandonment rate is proof that the Claims notice is overreaching. Not so. > > J. Scott > > > J. Scott Evans > 408.536.5336 (tel) > 345 Park Avenue, Mail Stop W11-544 > Director, Trademarks > 408.709.6162 (cell) > San Jose, CA, 95110, USA > Adobe. Make It an Experience. > jsevans@adobe.com > www.adobe.com > > > > > On 6/9/17, 7:16 AM, "gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Rebecca Tushnet" <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Rebecca.Tushnet@law.georgetown.edu> wrote: > > I agree with Paul K. Unfortunately, we need better information than > that--we need to know about, of attempts that reached the stage at > which a notice would be provided, how many were abandoned. It's my > understanding--though I'd be happy to learn more--that the notice > wouldn't come when the shopping cart was filled but at checkout. > > If we just don't have the data, then it may be that our only > recommendation must be to get the data. > Rebecca Tushnet > Georgetown Law > 703 593 6759 > > > On Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 4:56 AM, Beckham, Brian < brian.beckham@wipo.int> wrote: > > Dear all, > > > > > > > > I’m not sure what is the right venue (i.e., in the sub-group, of which I am > > not a member, or to the full WG) to offer this, and it is offered merely to > > help fill out some of the questions/discussion around seeking various > > TMCH/Claims-related data. > > > > > > > > In the transcript for the Sub Team for Trademark Claims call on Friday, 02 > > June 2017 at 16:00 UTC, there was some discussion on abandonment rates. In > > summary: Rebeca Tushnet suggested it would be helpful to compare > > non-TMCH-related abandonment vs “regular” abandonment. Jeff Neuman recalled > > that during the BIZ launch there was a high abandonment. Phil Corwin > > suggested that if the non-TMCH-related abandonment rate was 80% then it may > > be reasonable to conclude that there’s not a material difference between > > those subject to claims notices. > > > > > > > > Mindful that it may be difficult or even impossible to obtain the desired > > data (a number of reasons, including competitive (dis-)advantages, were > > raised on the call), a recent GoDaddy post informs us that “An average > > website loses 69 percent of sales to abandoned carts.” A second GoDaddy > > article suggests it is 67%. > > > > > > > > See > > https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url= https%3A%2F%2Fwww.godaddy.com%2Fgarage%2Fsmallbusiness% 2Fmarket%2Feffective-strategies-to-boost-abandoned- cart-email-conversion-rates%2F&data=02%7C01%7C% 7C5323a61f9cb343c0017d08d4af42231a%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178de cee1%7C0%7C0%7C636326145971754867&sdata=PtxSnnbDMNsumNMyaHdzoZZY0jowSq g1LeeFXqplKq4%3D&reserved=0 > > and > > > > https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url= https%3A%2F%2Fwww.godaddy.com%2Fgarage%2Findustry%2Fretail% 2Fecommerce%2Fwant-to-to-increase-sales-reduce- shopping-cart-abandonment%2F&data=02%7C01%7C% 7C5323a61f9cb343c0017d08d4af42231a%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178de cee1%7C0%7C0%7C636326145971754867&sdata=aOJ1E7T6ITmYfP4bMNsvQ7dJAj3Qrs wMl4YK42BQp6c%3D&reserved=0. > > > > > > > > There are many articles on this topic with varying figures, but they tended > > to generally note abandonment rates upwards of 60%. > > > > > > > > The takeaway is that the TMCH-Claims rates observed here in the WG, while > > different/higher, are arguably not materially different than e-commerce > > statistics generally (certainly not the 20% noted by Phil Corwin as > > signaling “a significant difference in the completion of registration.”). > > > > > > > > It is important here to recall too that many members of the WG have noted > > that (for a number of reasons) registries, registrars, and registrants may > > have been sending queries in large numbers, thus skewing the data upwards. > > > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > > > > > Brian > > > > > > > > Brian Beckham | Head, Internet Dispute Resolution Section | WIPO Arbitration > > and Mediation Center > > 34 chemin des Colombettes, 1211 Geneva 20, Switzerland | T +4122 338 8247 | > > E brian.beckham@wipo.int | https://na01.safelinks. protection.outlook.com/?url=www.wipo.int&data=02%7C01%7C% 7C5323a61f9cb343c0017d08d4af42231a%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178de cee1%7C0%7C0%7C636326145971754867&sdata=lenvIEKAPus7F2zCjYUJaxaYKhFe8% 2B8rBpfZriFt75Y%3D&reserved=0 > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > gnso-rpm-wg mailing list > > gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org > > https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url= https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso- rpm-wg&data=02%7C01%7C%7C5323a61f9cb343c0017d08d4af42231a% 7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636326145971754867&sdata= uS2vBiv2CKXZWjfp3QvSJDUUIZFpOCXlbaqpWca83yI%3D&reserved=0 > _______________________________________________ > gnso-rpm-wg mailing list > gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org > https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url= https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso- rpm-wg&data=02%7C01%7C%7C5323a61f9cb343c0017d08d4af42231a% 7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636326145971754867&sdata= uS2vBiv2CKXZWjfp3QvSJDUUIZFpOCXlbaqpWca83yI%3D&reserved=0 > > _______________________________________________ > gnso-rpm-wg mailing list > gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org > https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url= https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso- rpm-wg&data=02%7C01%7C%7C01683e8ee1db418bc47108d4af4346a4% 7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636326150869181271&sdata= ma0nDH%2FEJQFyw1WraCvCRa7PfRNCUnmMJvZhZGoIKMk%3D&reserved=0 > > > _______________________________________________ > gnso-rpm-wg mailing list > gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org > https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url= https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso- rpm-wg&data=02%7C01%7C%7C0810a866745c4ea05a3908d4af4719f8% 7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636326167299636350&sdata= 4A94L2iwoH4V%2B4AxZA%2B3CHNCYXxC2CBQEtDmlr8O7rc%3D&reserved=0
-- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung.
Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung -
Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net
Web: https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url= www.key-systems.net&data=02%7C01%7C%7C0810a866745c4ea05a3908d4af4719f8% 7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636326167299636350&sdata= O7GYi6gY6APoVPhRT4hwqA5bYqrcJFcjKFIPndRvG5s%3D&reserved=0 / https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url= www.RRPproxy.net&data=02%7C01%7C%7C0810a866745c4ea05a3908d4af4719f8% 7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636326167299636350&sdata= IlooHlulVb9zrLGZNpG5QoKOEBZnxEzhhTnKAAp9IOg%3D&reserved=0 https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url= www.domaindiscount24.com&data=02%7C01%7C%7C0810a866745c4ea05a3908d4af47 19f8%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0% 7C636326167299636350&sdata=XEmSKo62nO3XoTmDdA0% 2FzjGyP0JzWmK8BJmWy17uVoE%3D&reserved=0 / https://na01.safelinks. protection.outlook.com/?url=www.BrandShelter.com&data=02%7C01%7C% 7C0810a866745c4ea05a3908d4af4719f8%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178de cee1%7C0%7C0%7C636326167299636350&sdata=2bbhuhwhf2XotsRuCZUPyz9K9gXXML TFurT83TZXiug%3D&reserved=0
Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url= www.facebook.com%2FKeySystems&data=02%7C01%7C% 7C0810a866745c4ea05a3908d4af4719f8%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178de cee1%7C0%7C0%7C636326167299636350&sdata=7jTA8d6MzALwTq10Bfly8Wnn% 2FYyIH%2BMrEcTbabYX4S4%3D&reserved=0 https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url= www.twitter.com%2Fkey_systems&data=02%7C01%7C% 7C0810a866745c4ea05a3908d4af4719f8%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178de cee1%7C0%7C0%7C636326167299646355&sdata=%2Btn8qlKO1yJ0NMM8yX4TmzqRabJQN cQ2yyu3xHMNDto%3D&reserved=0
Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url= www.keydrive.lu&data=02%7C01%7C%7C0810a866745c4ea05a3908d4af4719f8% 7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636326167299646355&sdata= YVpDJuVJOBKjm6uNoha%2FOi0LV8A35gVLwMyUD0heZ2c%3D&reserved=0
Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen.
--------------------------------------------
Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Best regards,
Volker A. Greimann - legal department -
Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net
Web: https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url= www.key-systems.net&data=02%7C01%7C%7C0810a866745c4ea05a3908d4af4719f8% 7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636326167299646355&sdata= lzBW0gmVS%2B2UiQP%2F5JbtAH0kYuORcuSconBPi71nSXc%3D&reserved=0 / https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url= www.RRPproxy.net&data=02%7C01%7C%7C0810a866745c4ea05a3908d4af4719f8% 7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636326167299646355&sdata=h% 2FZhphjPah4DyM%2FwgLEclR3CwJSHqir1%2BwgU2iY6zoo%3D&reserved=0 https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url= www.domaindiscount24.com&data=02%7C01%7C%7C0810a866745c4ea05a3908d4af47 19f8%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0% 7C636326167299646355&sdata=sQ08paL2jRlhPaKbLexcKYaUsrq% 2FN%2FZYvIWh2t8ijso%3D&reserved=0 / https://na01.safelinks. protection.outlook.com/?url=www.BrandShelter.com&data=02%7C01%7C% 7C0810a866745c4ea05a3908d4af4719f8%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178de cee1%7C0%7C0%7C636326167299646355&sdata=G%2BqbUbYGk%2Bq% 2FP5bxZ52Td97g8ohhviWTKMc68ParqJg%3D&reserved=0
Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url= www.facebook.com%2FKeySystems&data=02%7C01%7C% 7C0810a866745c4ea05a3908d4af4719f8%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178de cee1%7C0%7C0%7C636326167299646355&sdata=hnOE%2FO0fDsYe6Hl5ai4pKcmbZ0IqvL% 2BywEMsM6lNeAU%3D&reserved=0 https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url= www.twitter.com%2Fkey_systems&data=02%7C01%7C% 7C0810a866745c4ea05a3908d4af4719f8%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178de cee1%7C0%7C0%7C636326167299646355&sdata=%2Btn8qlKO1yJ0NMM8yX4TmzqRabJQN cQ2yyu3xHMNDto%3D&reserved=0
CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url= www.keydrive.lu&data=02%7C01%7C%7C0810a866745c4ea05a3908d4af4719f8% 7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636326167299646355&sdata= YVpDJuVJOBKjm6uNoha%2FOi0LV8A35gVLwMyUD0heZ2c%3D&reserved=0
This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.
_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url= https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso- rpm-wg&data=02%7C01%7C%7C0810a866745c4ea05a3908d4af4719f8% 7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636326167299646355&sdata= bwo8MiYipFMZb2OmjkIO00acK%2FnIxdmexwt%2BwHc8lkE%3D&reserved=0
_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
Greg, thanks for asking. The way the process is designed, its requirements cannot be met in certain scenarios. The pre-order scenario conflicts with the requirement that the registration may only be requested if the agreement to the notice is not older than [x time]. So we cannot pre-fetch the notices and present them at the time of the order as the registration would occur at a time when the agreement to the notice has already expired. This is checked in the registration path, e.g. registrars have to provide the timestamp and other details during the registration. In the reseller scenario, we simply cannot meet the responsibility of making sure that the agreement is provided by the registrant and not another party. As this agreement happens outside of our system, we cannot make sure who confirmed the notice. Hence the need to get a notice directly to the registrant to ensure that he has seen the notice and confirmed his intent to register the string anyway. Anything else would require that all resellers insert code into their registration portals that we would provide, might not be compatible, etc. Many resellers also operate on third party platforms, such as Parallels/Odin, making additional implementation costly and time-consuming. Finally, even with our own direct customers we cannot be certain that the person owning the account is registering the domain name from himself. Personally, I manage the domain names of my entire extended family and have registered domains for many of them. They would be in the whois as registrants, but I would be the person making the order (and potentially confirming the notice). Essentially, the entire notice process was badly designed from the viewpoint of many registrars as it made assumptions about how the registration process works that missed the target in many cases. It causes consumer confusion, reseller frustration and loss of income for both registries and registrars from legitimate customers who simply do not realize they have to do an extra step that does not apply to all other regular registrations they do. Personally, I would advocate doing away with claims notices to domain applicants and simply relying on the notification process to the rights holders. Hope this helps. Best, Volker Am 09.06.2017 um 17:53 schrieb Greg Shatan:
I agree that our recommendations should include suggested data collection and metrics. The data desert we are wandering in needs to be irrigated so that it will bloom.
I think Brian's data is helpful in that it provides some real data on a baseline of abandonment. Not enough to make conclusions but it provides some sense of a typical abandonment rate.
I think Volker points out an implementation problem, but one that deserves better understanding -- why are some notices not able to be generated in the "normal" path? Where does the problem lie? This may make more sense to discuss when we reach discussion of the Claims Notice.
So far, it's still my personal impression is that we don't have enough data to draw any conclusions regarding abandonment and its causes (Trademark Notice vs. Other Reasons, "Good" Chilling Effect v. "Bad" Chilling Effect).
FYI FWIW, hotel.xyz <http://hotel.xyz> is available as a premium domain at the low, low price of $3,249.99 (Cheap! At least by comparison to hotel.design or hotel.party, which are $6,499.99) Also FYI, the owner of cloud.xyz <http://cloud.xyz> (which seems to resolve to a blank page) is:
Registrant Name: Zhang Guo Registrant Organization: Zhang Guo Registrant Street: You Yi Lu 71Hao Registrant City: QHDS Registrant State/Province: HBS Registrant Postal Code: 066000 Registrant Country: CN Registrant Phone: +86.13031887567 Registrant Fax: +86.13031887567 Registrant Email: saik56@163.com <mailto:saik56@163.com> Registry Admin ID: C123319878-CNIC
G reg
On Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 11:00 AM, J. Scott Evans via gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>> wrote:
Volker:
Thanks for this perspective. I know that my marketing team struggles with what they call “stickiness” of a registration process. Specifically, they are always looking for ways to streamline the registration process because the “stickier” the process (the more steps need to complete registration) leads to a high drop off rate. Your antidotal evidence certainly aligns with the same type of situation my folks at Adobe find difficult in selling our subscriptions.
J. Scott Evans 408.536.5336 <tel:408.536.5336> (tel) 345 Park Avenue, Mail Stop W11-544 Director, Trademarks 408.709.6162 <tel:408.709.6162> (cell) San Jose, CA, 95110, USA Adobe. Make It an Experience. jsevans@adobe.com <mailto:jsevans@adobe.com> www.adobe.com <http://www.adobe.com>
On 6/9/17, 7:52 AM, "gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Volker Greimann" <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of vgreimann@key-systems.net <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>> wrote:
There can be a significant drop-off due the necessity to present this notice seperate from the purchase process.
Examples:
1) Potential Registrant pre-orders a domain: the notice cannot be presented at the time of purchase
2) Potential Registrant orders the domain through a reseller with its own front-end: the notice cannot be presented by the registrar in the purchase process
Result => Notice has to be presented after the order is received but before it is executed in an alternate process, usually email. While we have not at the time measured the actual rate, we did note a significant drop-off between the numbers of registrants directed to visit a website where the notice could be presented and confirmed and the number of mails sent. The drop-off between the number of customers visiting the site, seeing the notice and then deciding not to pursue the registration was smaller.
Conclusion: The current noticeconfirmation process that is supposed to be in the registration path does not work well in real life for many industry sales channel.
Best,
Volker
Am 09.06.2017 um 16:28 schrieb J. Scott Evans via gnso-rpm-wg: > Brain. Point taken. I don’t mean to be flippant. That said, I am growing increasing tired of there always being a negative inference from behaviors from those that are overall hostile to RPMs in general. My point is that as a proponent of RPMs and someone who worked diligently for over 9 months to come up with these RPMs that the abandonment rate does not automatically indicate that the system is not working as intended. > > > J. Scott Evans > 408.536.5336 <tel:408.536.5336> (tel) > 345 Park Avenue, Mail Stop W11-544 > Director, Trademarks > 408.709.6162 (cell) > San Jose, CA, 95110, USA > Adobe. Make It an Experience. > jsevans@adobe.com <mailto:jsevans@adobe.com> > www.adobe.com <http://www.adobe.com> > > > > > On 6/9/17, 7:24 AM, "Brian F. Cimbolic" <BCimbolic@pir.org <mailto:BCimbolic@pir.org>> wrote: > > J. Scott, respectfully, what evidence is there that the Claims notice provided to registrants is not having a chilling effect for those with no intention to infringe? I understand there is not direct evidence on either side of the issue, but to say decisively that it is "Not so" about the chilling effect without providing some evidence seems unnecessarily flippant. > > Brian Cimbolic > Deputy General Counsel, Public Interest Registry > Office: +1 703 889-5752 <tel:%2B1%20703%20889-5752>| Mobile: + 1 571 385-7871 <tel:%2B%201%20571%20385-7871>| > https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=www.pir.org&data=02%7C01%... <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=www.pir.org&data=02%7C01%...> | Facebook | Twitter | Instagram | YouTube > > > Confidentiality Note: Proprietary and confidential to Public Interest Registry. If received in error, please inform sender and then delete. > > -----Original Message----- > From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of J. Scott Evans via gnso-rpm-wg > Sent: Friday, June 09, 2017 10:19 AM > To: Rebecca Tushnet <Rebecca.Tushnet@law.georgetown.edu <mailto:Rebecca.Tushnet@law.georgetown.edu>>; Beckham, Brian <brian.beckham@wipo.int <mailto:brian.beckham@wipo.int>> > Cc: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> > Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] TMCH data on abandonment > Importance: High > > I will remind the group that Abandonment is the point. The TM Claims notice is designed to inform would-be innocent infringers that there is an issue. A high abandonment rate show that the system is working. I realize those hostile to the TM Claims feel that a high abandonment rate is proof that the Claims notice is overreaching. Not so. > > J. Scott > > > J. Scott Evans > 408.536.5336 <tel:408.536.5336> (tel) > 345 Park Avenue, Mail Stop W11-544 > Director, Trademarks > 408.709.6162 <tel:408.709.6162> (cell) > San Jose, CA, 95110, USA > Adobe. Make It an Experience. > jsevans@adobe.com <mailto:jsevans@adobe.com> > www.adobe.com <http://www.adobe.com> > > > > > On 6/9/17, 7:16 AM, "gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Rebecca Tushnet" <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Rebecca.Tushnet@law.georgetown.edu <mailto:Rebecca.Tushnet@law.georgetown.edu>> wrote: > > I agree with Paul K. Unfortunately, we need better information than > that--we need to know about, of attempts that reached the stage at > which a notice would be provided, how many were abandoned. It's my > understanding--though I'd be happy to learn more--that the notice > wouldn't come when the shopping cart was filled but at checkout. > > If we just don't have the data, then it may be that our only > recommendation must be to get the data. > Rebecca Tushnet > Georgetown Law > 703 593 6759 <tel:703%20593%206759> > > > On Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 4:56 AM, Beckham, Brian <brian.beckham@wipo.int <mailto:brian.beckham@wipo.int>> wrote: > > Dear all, > > > > > > > > I’m not sure what is the right venue (i.e., in the sub-group, of which I am > > not a member, or to the full WG) to offer this, and it is offered merely to > > help fill out some of the questions/discussion around seeking various > > TMCH/Claims-related data. > > > > > > > > In the transcript for the Sub Team for Trademark Claims call on Friday, 02 > > June 2017 at 16:00 UTC, there was some discussion on abandonment rates. In > > summary: Rebeca Tushnet suggested it would be helpful to compare > > non-TMCH-related abandonment vs “regular” abandonment. Jeff Neuman recalled > > that during the BIZ launch there was a high abandonment. Phil Corwin > > suggested that if the non-TMCH-related abandonment rate was 80% then it may > > be reasonable to conclude that there’s not a material difference between > > those subject to claims notices. > > > > > > > > Mindful that it may be difficult or even impossible to obtain the desired > > data (a number of reasons, including competitive (dis-)advantages, were > > raised on the call), a recent GoDaddy post informs us that “An average > > website loses 69 percent of sales to abandoned carts.” A second GoDaddy > > article suggests it is 67%. > > > > > > > > See > > https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.godaddy... <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.godaddy...> > > and > > > > https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.godaddy... <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.godaddy...>. > > > > > > > > There are many articles on this topic with varying figures, but they tended > > to generally note abandonment rates upwards of 60%. > > > > > > > > The takeaway is that the TMCH-Claims rates observed here in the WG, while > > different/higher, are arguably not materially different than e-commerce > > statistics generally (certainly not the 20% noted by Phil Corwin as > > signaling “a significant difference in the completion of registration.”). > > > > > > > > It is important here to recall too that many members of the WG have noted > > that (for a number of reasons) registries, registrars, and registrants may > > have been sending queries in large numbers, thus skewing the data upwards. > > > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > > > > > Brian > > > > > > > > Brian Beckham | Head, Internet Dispute Resolution Section | WIPO Arbitration > > and Mediation Center > > 34 chemin des Colombettes, 1211 Geneva 20, Switzerland | T +4122 338 8247 <tel:%2B4122%20338%208247> | > > E brian.beckham@wipo.int <mailto:brian.beckham@wipo.int> | https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=www.wipo.int&data=02%7C01... <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=www.wipo.int&data=02%7C01...> > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > gnso-rpm-wg mailing list > > gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> > > https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.or... <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.or...> > _______________________________________________ > gnso-rpm-wg mailing list > gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> > https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.or... <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.or...> > > _______________________________________________ > gnso-rpm-wg mailing list > gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> > https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.or... <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.or...> > > > _______________________________________________ > gnso-rpm-wg mailing list > gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> > https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.or... <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.or...>
-- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung.
Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung -
Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 <tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20901> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 <tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20851> Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>
Web: https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=www.key-systems.net&data=... <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=www.key-systems.net&data=...> / https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=www.RRPproxy.net&data=02%... <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=www.RRPproxy.net&data=02%...> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=www.domaindiscount24.com&... <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=www.domaindiscount24.com&...> / https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=www.BrandShelter.com&data... <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=www.BrandShelter.com&data...>
Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=www.facebook.com%2FKeySys... <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=www.facebook.com%2FKeySys...> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=www.twitter.com%2Fkey_sys... <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=www.twitter.com%2Fkey_sys...>
Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=www.keydrive.lu&data=02%7... <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=www.keydrive.lu&data=02%7...>
Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen.
--------------------------------------------
Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Best regards,
Volker A. Greimann - legal department -
Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 <tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20901> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>
Web: https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=www.key-systems.net&data=... <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=www.key-systems.net&data=...> / https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=www.RRPproxy.net&data=02%... <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=www.RRPproxy.net&data=02%...> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=www.domaindiscount24.com&... <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=www.domaindiscount24.com&...> / https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=www.BrandShelter.com&data... <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=www.BrandShelter.com&data...>
Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=www.facebook.com%2FKeySys... <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=www.facebook.com%2FKeySys...> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=www.twitter.com%2Fkey_sys... <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=www.twitter.com%2Fkey_sys...>
CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=www.keydrive.lu&data=02%7... <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=www.keydrive.lu&data=02%7...>
This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.
_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.or... <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.or...>
_______________________________________________ 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>
-- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.twitter.com/key_systems Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.twitter.com/key_systems CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.
Thanks Volker for that useful feedback. Is there a practical way to redesign the Notice process that aligns with registrar business practices while still generating Notice to applicants for at least exact matches of TMCH terms? Best, Philip Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/Cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Volker Greimann Sent: Friday, June 09, 2017 12:12 PM To: Greg Shatan; J. Scott Evans Cc: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] TMCH data on abandonment Greg, thanks for asking. The way the process is designed, its requirements cannot be met in certain scenarios. The pre-order scenario conflicts with the requirement that the registration may only be requested if the agreement to the notice is not older than [x time]. So we cannot pre-fetch the notices and present them at the time of the order as the registration would occur at a time when the agreement to the notice has already expired. This is checked in the registration path, e.g. registrars have to provide the timestamp and other details during the registration. In the reseller scenario, we simply cannot meet the responsibility of making sure that the agreement is provided by the registrant and not another party. As this agreement happens outside of our system, we cannot make sure who confirmed the notice. Hence the need to get a notice directly to the registrant to ensure that he has seen the notice and confirmed his intent to register the string anyway. Anything else would require that all resellers insert code into their registration portals that we would provide, might not be compatible, etc. Many resellers also operate on third party platforms, such as Parallels/Odin, making additional implementation costly and time-consuming. Finally, even with our own direct customers we cannot be certain that the person owning the account is registering the domain name from himself. Personally, I manage the domain names of my entire extended family and have registered domains for many of them. They would be in the whois as registrants, but I would be the person making the order (and potentially confirming the notice). Essentially, the entire notice process was badly designed from the viewpoint of many registrars as it made assumptions about how the registration process works that missed the target in many cases. It causes consumer confusion, reseller frustration and loss of income for both registries and registrars from legitimate customers who simply do not realize they have to do an extra step that does not apply to all other regular registrations they do. Personally, I would advocate doing away with claims notices to domain applicants and simply relying on the notification process to the rights holders. Hope this helps. Best, Volker Am 09.06.2017 um 17:53 schrieb Greg Shatan: I agree that our recommendations should include suggested data collection and metrics. The data desert we are wandering in needs to be irrigated so that it will bloom. I think Brian's data is helpful in that it provides some real data on a baseline of abandonment. Not enough to make conclusions but it provides some sense of a typical abandonment rate. I think Volker points out an implementation problem, but one that deserves better understanding -- why are some notices not able to be generated in the "normal" path? Where does the problem lie? This may make more sense to discuss when we reach discussion of the Claims Notice. So far, it's still my personal impression is that we don't have enough data to draw any conclusions regarding abandonment and its causes (Trademark Notice vs. Other Reasons, "Good" Chilling Effect v. "Bad" Chilling Effect). FYI FWIW, hotel.xyz<http://hotel.xyz> is available as a premium domain at the low, low price of $3,249.99 (Cheap! At least by comparison to hotel.design or hotel.party, which are $6,499.99) Also FYI, the owner of cloud.xyz<http://cloud.xyz> (which seems to resolve to a blank page) is: Registrant Name: Zhang Guo Registrant Organization: Zhang Guo Registrant Street: You Yi Lu 71Hao Registrant City: QHDS Registrant State/Province: HBS Registrant Postal Code: 066000 Registrant Country: CN Registrant Phone: +86.13031887567 Registrant Fax: +86.13031887567 Registrant Email: saik56@163.com<mailto:saik56@163.com> Registry Admin ID: C123319878-CNIC G reg On Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 11:00 AM, J. Scott Evans via gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>> wrote: Volker: Thanks for this perspective. I know that my marketing team struggles with what they call “stickiness” of a registration process. Specifically, they are always looking for ways to streamline the registration process because the “stickier” the process (the more steps need to complete registration) leads to a high drop off rate. Your antidotal evidence certainly aligns with the same type of situation my folks at Adobe find difficult in selling our subscriptions. J. Scott Evans 408.536.5336<tel:408.536.5336> (tel) 345 Park Avenue, Mail Stop W11-544 Director, Trademarks 408.709.6162<tel:408.709.6162> (cell) San Jose, CA, 95110, USA Adobe. Make It an Experience. jsevans@adobe.com<mailto:jsevans@adobe.com> www.adobe.com<http://www.adobe.com> On 6/9/17, 7:52 AM, "gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Volker Greimann" <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>> wrote: There can be a significant drop-off due the necessity to present this notice seperate from the purchase process. Examples: 1) Potential Registrant pre-orders a domain: the notice cannot be presented at the time of purchase 2) Potential Registrant orders the domain through a reseller with its own front-end: the notice cannot be presented by the registrar in the purchase process Result => Notice has to be presented after the order is received but before it is executed in an alternate process, usually email. While we have not at the time measured the actual rate, we did note a significant drop-off between the numbers of registrants directed to visit a website where the notice could be presented and confirmed and the number of mails sent. The drop-off between the number of customers visiting the site, seeing the notice and then deciding not to pursue the registration was smaller. Conclusion: The current noticeconfirmation process that is supposed to be in the registration path does not work well in real life for many industry sales channel. Best, Volker Am 09.06.2017 um 16:28 schrieb J. Scott Evans via gnso-rpm-wg: > Brain. Point taken. I don’t mean to be flippant. That said, I am growing increasing tired of there always being a negative inference from behaviors from those that are overall hostile to RPMs in general. My point is that as a proponent of RPMs and someone who worked diligently for over 9 months to come up with these RPMs that the abandonment rate does not automatically indicate that the system is not working as intended. > > > J. Scott Evans > 408.536.5336<tel:408.536.5336> (tel) > 345 Park Avenue, Mail Stop W11-544 > Director, Trademarks > 408.709.6162 (cell) > San Jose, CA, 95110, USA > Adobe. Make It an Experience. > jsevans@adobe.com<mailto:jsevans@adobe.com> > www.adobe.com<http://www.adobe.com> > > > > > On 6/9/17, 7:24 AM, "Brian F. Cimbolic" <BCimbolic@pir.org<mailto:BCimbolic@pir.org>> wrote: > > J. Scott, respectfully, what evidence is there that the Claims notice provided to registrants is not having a chilling effect for those with no intention to infringe? I understand there is not direct evidence on either side of the issue, but to say decisively that it is "Not so" about the chilling effect without providing some evidence seems unnecessarily flippant. > > Brian Cimbolic > Deputy General Counsel, Public Interest Registry > Office: +1 703 889-5752<tel:%2B1%20703%20889-5752>| Mobile: + 1 571 385-7871<tel:%2B%201%20571%20385-7871>| > https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=www.pir.org&data=02%7C01%... | Facebook | Twitter | Instagram | YouTube > > > Confidentiality Note: Proprietary and confidential to Public Interest Registry. If received in error, please inform sender and then delete. > > -----Original Message----- > From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of J. Scott Evans via gnso-rpm-wg > Sent: Friday, June 09, 2017 10:19 AM > To: Rebecca Tushnet <Rebecca.Tushnet@law.georgetown.edu<mailto:Rebecca.Tushnet@law.georgetown.edu>>; Beckham, Brian <brian.beckham@wipo.int<mailto:brian.beckham@wipo.int>> > Cc: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> > Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] TMCH data on abandonment > Importance: High > > I will remind the group that Abandonment is the point. The TM Claims notice is designed to inform would-be innocent infringers that there is an issue. A high abandonment rate show that the system is working. I realize those hostile to the TM Claims feel that a high abandonment rate is proof that the Claims notice is overreaching. Not so. > > J. Scott > > > J. Scott Evans > 408.536.5336<tel:408.536.5336> (tel) > 345 Park Avenue, Mail Stop W11-544 > Director, Trademarks > 408.709.6162<tel:408.709.6162> (cell) > San Jose, CA, 95110, USA > Adobe. Make It an Experience. > jsevans@adobe.com<mailto:jsevans@adobe.com> > www.adobe.com<http://www.adobe.com> > > > > > On 6/9/17, 7:16 AM, "gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Rebecca Tushnet" <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Rebecca.Tushnet@law.georgetown.edu<mailto:Rebecca.Tushnet@law.georgetown.edu>> wrote: > > I agree with Paul K. Unfortunately, we need better information than > that--we need to know about, of attempts that reached the stage at > which a notice would be provided, how many were abandoned. It's my > understanding--though I'd be happy to learn more--that the notice > wouldn't come when the shopping cart was filled but at checkout. > > If we just don't have the data, then it may be that our only > recommendation must be to get the data. > Rebecca Tushnet > Georgetown Law > 703 593 6759<tel:703%20593%206759> > > > On Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 4:56 AM, Beckham, Brian <brian.beckham@wipo.int<mailto:brian.beckham@wipo.int>> wrote: > > Dear all, > > > > > > > > I’m not sure what is the right venue (i.e., in the sub-group, of which I am > > not a member, or to the full WG) to offer this, and it is offered merely to > > help fill out some of the questions/discussion around seeking various > > TMCH/Claims-related data. > > > > > > > > In the transcript for the Sub Team for Trademark Claims call on Friday, 02 > > June 2017 at 16:00 UTC, there was some discussion on abandonment rates. In > > summary: Rebeca Tushnet suggested it would be helpful to compare > > non-TMCH-related abandonment vs “regular” abandonment. Jeff Neuman recalled > > that during the BIZ launch there was a high abandonment. Phil Corwin > > suggested that if the non-TMCH-related abandonment rate was 80% then it may > > be reasonable to conclude that there’s not a material difference between > > those subject to claims notices. > > > > > > > > Mindful that it may be difficult or even impossible to obtain the desired > > data (a number of reasons, including competitive (dis-)advantages, were > > raised on the call), a recent GoDaddy post informs us that “An average > > website loses 69 percent of sales to abandoned carts.” A second GoDaddy > > article suggests it is 67%. > > > > > > > > See > > https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.godaddy... > > and > > > > https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.godaddy.... > > > > > > > > There are many articles on this topic with varying figures, but they tended > > to generally note abandonment rates upwards of 60%. > > > > > > > > The takeaway is that the TMCH-Claims rates observed here in the WG, while > > different/higher, are arguably not materially different than e-commerce > > statistics generally (certainly not the 20% noted by Phil Corwin as > > signaling “a significant difference in the completion of registration.”). > > > > > > > > It is important here to recall too that many members of the WG have noted > > that (for a number of reasons) registries, registrars, and registrants may > > have been sending queries in large numbers, thus skewing the data upwards. > > > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > > > > > Brian > > > > > > > > Brian Beckham | Head, Internet Dispute Resolution Section | WIPO Arbitration > > and Mediation Center > > 34 chemin des Colombettes, 1211 Geneva 20, Switzerland | T +4122 338 8247<tel:%2B4122%20338%208247> | > > E brian.beckham@wipo.int<mailto:brian.beckham@wipo.int> | https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=www.wipo.int&data=02%7C01... > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > gnso-rpm-wg mailing list > > gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> > > https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.or... > _______________________________________________ > gnso-rpm-wg mailing list > gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> > https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.or... > > _______________________________________________ > gnso-rpm-wg mailing list > gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> > https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.or... > > > _______________________________________________ > gnso-rpm-wg mailing list > gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> > https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.or... -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901<tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20901> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851<tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20851> Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=www.key-systems.net&data=... / https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=www.RRPproxy.net&data=02%... https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=www.domaindiscount24.com&... / https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=www.BrandShelter.com&data... Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=www.facebook.com%2FKeySys... https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=www.twitter.com%2Fkey_sys... Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=www.keydrive.lu&data=02%7... Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901<tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20901> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=www.key-systems.net&data=... / https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=www.RRPproxy.net&data=02%... https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=www.domaindiscount24.com&... / https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=www.BrandShelter.com&data... Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=www.facebook.com%2FKeySys... https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=www.twitter.com%2Fkey_sys... CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=www.keydrive.lu&data=02%7... This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone. _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.or... _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.RRPproxy.net> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.BrandShelter.com> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.RRPproxy.net> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.BrandShelter.com> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.
Hi Phil, interesting question. I figure the notice process would have to be removed from the order process to be smooth and workable for all registration workflows. It would also likely not require the registrant to "click a link" somewhere as that is counter to all phishing warnings out there. Ultimately, I assume this would result in a post-registration notice with an option to return the domain name for a refund. Potentially such a notice could be tied to the activation of the domain in the DNS. I also like the model that .xxx used for confirmation of eligibility. While it is not ideal, some form of post-registration requirement to confirm to keep the ability to use the domain might work better and reduce abandonment. A general warning that the registrant has the obligation to check whether the registration violates third party rights before completing the request is included in the registration agreements of most registrars anyway, so there already is a warning, even though it is not specific. (KS RA): /"Customer undertakes to guarantee that the applied-for domain name and the intended use of the domain name: (a) do not violate rights of third parties, (...)"/ Best, Volker Am 09.06.2017 um 18:26 schrieb Phil Corwin:
Thanks Volker for that useful feedback.
Is there a practical way to redesign the Notice process that aligns with registrar business practices while still generating Notice to applicants for at least exact matches of TMCH terms?
Best, Philip
*Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal*
*Virtualaw LLC*
*1155 F Street, NW*
*Suite 1050*
*Washington, DC 20004*
*202-559-8597/Direct*
*202-559-8750/Fax*
*202-255-6172/Cell***
**
*Twitter: @VlawDC*
*/"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey/*
*From:*gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Volker Greimann *Sent:* Friday, June 09, 2017 12:12 PM *To:* Greg Shatan; J. Scott Evans *Cc:* gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] TMCH data on abandonment
Greg, thanks for asking.
The way the process is designed, its requirements cannot be met in certain scenarios.
The pre-order scenario conflicts with the requirement that the registration may only be requested if the agreement to the notice is not older than [x time]. So we cannot pre-fetch the notices and present them at the time of the order as the registration would occur at a time when the agreement to the notice has already expired. This is checked in the registration path, e.g. registrars have to provide the timestamp and other details during the registration.
In the reseller scenario, we simply cannot meet the responsibility of making sure that the agreement is provided by the registrant and not another party. As this agreement happens outside of our system, we cannot make sure who confirmed the notice. Hence the need to get a notice directly to the registrant to ensure that he has seen the notice and confirmed his intent to register the string anyway. Anything else would require that all resellers insert code into their registration portals that we would provide, might not be compatible, etc. Many resellers also operate on third party platforms, such as Parallels/Odin, making additional implementation costly and time-consuming.
Finally, even with our own direct customers we cannot be certain that the person owning the account is registering the domain name from himself. Personally, I manage the domain names of my entire extended family and have registered domains for many of them. They would be in the whois as registrants, but I would be the person making the order (and potentially confirming the notice).
Essentially, the entire notice process was badly designed from the viewpoint of many registrars as it made assumptions about how the registration process works that missed the target in many cases. It causes consumer confusion, reseller frustration and loss of income for both registries and registrars from legitimate customers who simply do not realize they have to do an extra step that does not apply to all other regular registrations they do.
Personally, I would advocate doing away with claims notices to domain applicants and simply relying on the notification process to the rights holders.
Hope this helps.
Best, Volker
Am 09.06.2017 um 17:53 schrieb Greg Shatan:
I agree that our recommendations should include suggested data collection and metrics. The data desert we are wandering in needs to be irrigated so that it will bloom.
I think Brian's data is helpful in that it provides some real data on a baseline of abandonment. Not enough to make conclusions but it provides some sense of a typical abandonment rate.
I think Volker points out an implementation problem, but one that deserves better understanding -- why are some notices not able to be generated in the "normal" path? Where does the problem lie? This may make more sense to discuss when we reach discussion of the Claims Notice.
So far, it's still my personal impression is that we don't have enough data to draw any conclusions regarding abandonment and its causes (Trademark Notice vs. Other Reasons, "Good" Chilling Effect v. "Bad" Chilling Effect).
FYI FWIW, hotel.xyz <http://hotel.xyz> is available as a premium domain at the low, low price of $3,249.99 (Cheap! At least by comparison to hotel.design or hotel.party, which are $6,499.99)
Also FYI, the owner of cloud.xyz <http://cloud.xyz> (which seems to resolve to a blank page) is:
Registrant Name: Zhang Guo Registrant Organization: Zhang Guo Registrant Street: You Yi Lu 71Hao Registrant City: QHDS Registrant State/Province: HBS Registrant Postal Code: 066000 Registrant Country: CN Registrant Phone: +86.13031887567 Registrant Fax: +86.13031887567 Registrant Email: saik56@163.com <mailto:saik56@163.com> Registry Admin ID: C123319878-CNIC
G
reg
On Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 11:00 AM, J. Scott Evans via gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>> wrote:
Volker:
Thanks for this perspective. I know that my marketing team struggles with what they call “stickiness” of a registration process. Specifically, they are always looking for ways to streamline the registration process because the “stickier” the process (the more steps need to complete registration) leads to a high drop off rate. Your antidotal evidence certainly aligns with the same type of situation my folks at Adobe find difficult in selling our subscriptions.
J. Scott Evans 408.536.5336 <tel:408.536.5336> (tel) 345 Park Avenue, Mail Stop W11-544 Director, Trademarks 408.709.6162 <tel:408.709.6162> (cell) San Jose, CA, 95110, USA Adobe. Make It an Experience. jsevans@adobe.com <mailto:jsevans@adobe.com> www.adobe.com <http://www.adobe.com>
On 6/9/17, 7:52 AM, "gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Volker Greimann" <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of vgreimann@key-systems.net <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>> wrote:
There can be a significant drop-off due the necessity to present this notice seperate from the purchase process.
Examples:
1) Potential Registrant pre-orders a domain: the notice cannot be presented at the time of purchase
2) Potential Registrant orders the domain through a reseller with its own front-end: the notice cannot be presented by the registrar in the purchase process
Result => Notice has to be presented after the order is received but before it is executed in an alternate process, usually email. While we have not at the time measured the actual rate, we did note a significant drop-off between the numbers of registrants directed to visit a website where the notice could be presented and confirmed and the number of mails sent. The drop-off between the number of customers visiting the site, seeing the notice and then deciding not to pursue the registration was smaller.
Conclusion: The current noticeconfirmation process that is supposed to be in the registration path does not work well in real life for many industry sales channel.
Best,
Volker
Am 09.06.2017 um 16:28 schrieb J. Scott Evans via gnso-rpm-wg: > Brain. Point taken. I don’t mean to be flippant. That said, I am growing increasing tired of there always being a negative inference from behaviors from those that are overall hostile to RPMs in general. My point is that as a proponent of RPMs and someone who worked diligently for over 9 months to come up with these RPMs that the abandonment rate does not automatically indicate that the system is not working as intended. > > > J. Scott Evans > 408.536.5336 <tel:408.536.5336> (tel) > 345 Park Avenue, Mail Stop W11-544 > Director, Trademarks > 408.709.6162 (cell) > San Jose, CA, 95110, USA > Adobe. Make It an Experience. > jsevans@adobe.com <mailto:jsevans@adobe.com> > www.adobe.com <http://www.adobe.com> > > > > > On 6/9/17, 7:24 AM, "Brian F. Cimbolic" <BCimbolic@pir.org <mailto:BCimbolic@pir.org>> wrote: > > J. Scott, respectfully, what evidence is there that the Claims notice provided to registrants is not having a chilling effect for those with no intention to infringe? I understand there is not direct evidence on either side of the issue, but to say decisively that it is "Not so" about the chilling effect without providing some evidence seems unnecessarily flippant. > > Brian Cimbolic > Deputy General Counsel, Public Interest Registry > Office: +1 703 889-5752 <tel:%2B1%20703%20889-5752>| Mobile: + 1 571 385-7871 <tel:%2B%201%20571%20385-7871>| > https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=www.pir.org&data=02%7C01%... | Facebook | Twitter | Instagram | YouTube > > > Confidentiality Note: Proprietary and confidential to Public Interest Registry. If received in error, please inform sender and then delete. > > -----Original Message----- > From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of J. Scott Evans via gnso-rpm-wg > Sent: Friday, June 09, 2017 10:19 AM > To: Rebecca Tushnet <Rebecca.Tushnet@law.georgetown.edu <mailto:Rebecca.Tushnet@law.georgetown.edu>>; Beckham, Brian <brian.beckham@wipo.int <mailto:brian.beckham@wipo.int>> > Cc: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> > Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] TMCH data on abandonment > Importance: High > > I will remind the group that Abandonment is the point. The TM Claims notice is designed to inform would-be innocent infringers that there is an issue. A high abandonment rate show that the system is working. I realize those hostile to the TM Claims feel that a high abandonment rate is proof that the Claims notice is overreaching. Not so. > > J. Scott > > > J. Scott Evans > 408.536.5336 <tel:408.536.5336> (tel) > 345 Park Avenue, Mail Stop W11-544 > Director, Trademarks > 408.709.6162 <tel:408.709.6162> (cell) > San Jose, CA, 95110, USA > Adobe. Make It an Experience. > jsevans@adobe.com <mailto:jsevans@adobe.com> > www.adobe.com <http://www.adobe.com> > > > > > On 6/9/17, 7:16 AM, "gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Rebecca Tushnet" <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Rebecca.Tushnet@law.georgetown.edu <mailto:Rebecca.Tushnet@law.georgetown.edu>> wrote: > > I agree with Paul K. Unfortunately, we need better information than > that--we need to know about, of attempts that reached the stage at > which a notice would be provided, how many were abandoned. It's my > understanding--though I'd be happy to learn more--that the notice > wouldn't come when the shopping cart was filled but at checkout. > > If we just don't have the data, then it may be that our only > recommendation must be to get the data. > Rebecca Tushnet > Georgetown Law > 703 593 6759 <tel:703%20593%206759> > > > On Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 4:56 AM, Beckham, Brian <brian.beckham@wipo.int <mailto:brian.beckham@wipo.int>> wrote: > > Dear all, > > > > > > > > I’m not sure what is the right venue (i.e., in the sub-group, of which I am > > not a member, or to the full WG) to offer this, and it is offered merely to > > help fill out some of the questions/discussion around seeking various > > TMCH/Claims-related data. > > > > > > > > In the transcript for the Sub Team for Trademark Claims call on Friday, 02 > > June 2017 at 16:00 UTC, there was some discussion on abandonment rates. In > > summary: Rebeca Tushnet suggested it would be helpful to compare > > non-TMCH-related abandonment vs “regular” abandonment. Jeff Neuman recalled > > that during the BIZ launch there was a high abandonment. Phil Corwin > > suggested that if the non-TMCH-related abandonment rate was 80% then it may > > be reasonable to conclude that there’s not a material difference between > > those subject to claims notices. > > > > > > > > Mindful that it may be difficult or even impossible to obtain the desired > > data (a number of reasons, including competitive (dis-)advantages, were > > raised on the call), a recent GoDaddy post informs us that “An average > > website loses 69 percent of sales to abandoned carts.” A second GoDaddy > > article suggests it is 67%. > > > > > > > > See > > https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.godaddy... > > and > > > > https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.godaddy.... > > > > > > > > There are many articles on this topic with varying figures, but they tended > > to generally note abandonment rates upwards of 60%. > > > > > > > > The takeaway is that the TMCH-Claims rates observed here in the WG, while > > different/higher, are arguably not materially different than e-commerce > > statistics generally (certainly not the 20% noted by Phil Corwin as > > signaling “a significant difference in the completion of registration.”). > > > > > > > > It is important here to recall too that many members of the WG have noted > > that (for a number of reasons) registries, registrars, and registrants may > > have been sending queries in large numbers, thus skewing the data upwards. > > > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > > > > > Brian > > > > > > > > Brian Beckham | Head, Internet Dispute Resolution Section | WIPO Arbitration > > and Mediation Center > > 34 chemin des Colombettes, 1211 Geneva 20, Switzerland | T +4122 338 8247 <tel:%2B4122%20338%208247> | > > E brian.beckham@wipo.int <mailto:brian.beckham@wipo.int> | https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=www.wipo.int&data=02%7C01... > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > gnso-rpm-wg mailing list > > gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> > > https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.or... > _______________________________________________ > gnso-rpm-wg mailing list > gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> > https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.or... > > _______________________________________________ > gnso-rpm-wg mailing list > gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> > https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.or... > > > _______________________________________________ > gnso-rpm-wg mailing list > gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>
> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.or...
-- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung.
Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung -
Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 <tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20901> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 <tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20851> Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>
Web: https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=www.key-systems.net&data=... / https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=www.RRPproxy.net&data=02%... https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=www.domaindiscount24.com&... / https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=www.BrandShelter.com&data...
Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=www.facebook.com%2FKeySys... https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=www.twitter.com%2Fkey_sys...
Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=www.keydrive.lu&data=02%7...
Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen.
--------------------------------------------
Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Best regards,
Volker A. Greimann - legal department -
Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 <tel:%2B49%20%280%29%206894%20-%209396%20901> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>
Web: https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=www.key-systems.net&data=... / https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=www.RRPproxy.net&data=02%... https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=www.domaindiscount24.com&... / https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=www.BrandShelter.com&data...
Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=www.facebook.com%2FKeySys... https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=www.twitter.com%2Fkey_sys...
CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=www.keydrive.lu&data=02%7...
This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.
_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.or...
_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
-- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email:vgreimann@key-systems.net <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web:www.key-systems.net <http://www.key-systems.net> /www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.RRPproxy.net> www.domaindiscount24.com <http://www.domaindiscount24.com> /www.BrandShelter.com <http://www.BrandShelter.com> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems <http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems <http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu <http://www.keydrive.lu> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email:vgreimann@key-systems.net <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web:www.key-systems.net <http://www.key-systems.net> /www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.RRPproxy.net> www.domaindiscount24.com <http://www.domaindiscount24.com> /www.BrandShelter.com <http://www.BrandShelter.com> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems <http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems <http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu <http://www.keydrive.lu> This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.
-- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.twitter.com/key_systems Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.twitter.com/key_systems CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.
This thread has wound on quite a bit since Brian's original post, but since my name came up in his let me add a few thoughts. Brian's email stated: > In the transcript for the Sub Team for Trademark Claims call on Friday, 02 > > June 2017 at 16:00 UTC, there was some discussion on abandonment rates... > Phil Corwin suggested that if the non-TMCH-related abandonment rate was 80% then it may > > be reasonable to conclude that there’s not a material difference between > > those subject to claims notices. > > > > Mindful that it may be difficult or even impossible to obtain the desired > > data (a number of reasons, including competitive (dis-)advantages, were > > raised on the call), a recent GoDaddy post informs us that “An average > > website loses 69 percent of sales to abandoned carts.” A second GoDaddy > > article suggests it is 67%. I haven’t reviewed the transcript of that call, but I just pulled the 80% number out of a hat and my intended point was that if there was just a small difference between abandonment rates of initiated domain registrations that did and did not generate claims notices then it might be reasonable to conclude that the received warning was having its intended targeted effect (deterring cybersquatting) and not causing significant abandonment of non-infringing domain registrations. It appears that the GoDaddy cart abandonment statistics relate to general ecommerce websites and not specifically to registrar websites so it would be useful to get data from registrars as to what their general cart abandonment rate is. But if it is 68% for initiated domain registrations then the 94.7 abandonment rate measured by the Analysis group would be 39.2% higher and that would seem statistically significant and indicative that non-infringing registrations may be deterred. (Noting for the record that we don't know how many of the abandoned registrations measured by AG were never intended to go to completion but were initiated for other purposes -- and that of the abandoned attempts that were intended to be completed we have no way of knowing which were initiated by intentional cybersquatters and which came from innocent parties with no infringing intent and whose actual domain use would not have been infringing.) We also don't know the effect of a claims warning receipt on an intentional cybersquatters versus innocent would-be registrants. Just as warning signs of home security systems may not deter a professional burglar, intentional cybersquatters may know the risk of detection and factor it into their business model. On the other hand, outside the ICANN bubble, most would be domain registrants are unlikely to have a law degree and upon receiving a notice warning of potential legal consequences if they complete the transaction may decide they don't wish to expend half a month's grocery money to consult with a trademark attorney. None of this is to say that the Claims Notice does not have merit or that we should not consider possible generation of notices, or at least notice to trademark holders of completed registrations, for some classes of non-exact matches. But it's clear that we also need more and better data because what we don't know probably exceeds what we do. We should also be mindful that we must maintain a reasonable balance between the scope of this RPM and its impact on domain registrants with no infringing intent, especially if their actual use of the domain would be lawful. Let's take a pragmatic view and recognize that any policymaking exercise is not an academic but an inherently political process and that "politics is the art of compromise". Also, as contracted parties in the business of creating and selling domains make up half the GNSO Council that must approve our final work product (lest all our work be for naught) that would suggest that our work should seek to assure that Claims Notices perform their intended effect of effectively deterring intended cybersquatting while minimizing the deterrence of legitimate domain registrations. Best, Philip Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/Cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey -----Original Message----- From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of J. Scott Evans via gnso-rpm-wg Sent: Friday, June 09, 2017 11:00 AM To: Volker Greimann; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] TMCH data on abandonment Volker: Thanks for this perspective. I know that my marketing team struggles with what they call “stickiness” of a registration process. Specifically, they are always looking for ways to streamline the registration process because the “stickier” the process (the more steps need to complete registration) leads to a high drop off rate. Your antidotal evidence certainly aligns with the same type of situation my folks at Adobe find difficult in selling our subscriptions. J. Scott Evans 408.536.5336 (tel) 345 Park Avenue, Mail Stop W11-544 Director, Trademarks 408.709.6162 (cell) San Jose, CA, 95110, USA Adobe. Make It an Experience. jsevans@adobe.com www.adobe.com On 6/9/17, 7:52 AM, "gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Volker Greimann" <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org on behalf of vgreimann@key-systems.net> wrote: There can be a significant drop-off due the necessity to present this notice seperate from the purchase process. Examples: 1) Potential Registrant pre-orders a domain: the notice cannot be presented at the time of purchase 2) Potential Registrant orders the domain through a reseller with its own front-end: the notice cannot be presented by the registrar in the purchase process Result => Notice has to be presented after the order is received but before it is executed in an alternate process, usually email. While we have not at the time measured the actual rate, we did note a significant drop-off between the numbers of registrants directed to visit a website where the notice could be presented and confirmed and the number of mails sent. The drop-off between the number of customers visiting the site, seeing the notice and then deciding not to pursue the registration was smaller. Conclusion: The current noticeconfirmation process that is supposed to be in the registration path does not work well in real life for many industry sales channel. Best, Volker Am 09.06.2017 um 16:28 schrieb J. Scott Evans via gnso-rpm-wg: > Brain. Point taken. I don’t mean to be flippant. That said, I am growing increasing tired of there always being a negative inference from behaviors from those that are overall hostile to RPMs in general. My point is that as a proponent of RPMs and someone who worked diligently for over 9 months to come up with these RPMs that the abandonment rate does not automatically indicate that the system is not working as intended. > > > J. Scott Evans > 408.536.5336 (tel) > 345 Park Avenue, Mail Stop W11-544 > Director, Trademarks > 408.709.6162 (cell) > San Jose, CA, 95110, USA > Adobe. Make It an Experience. > jsevans@adobe.com > www.adobe.com > > > > > On 6/9/17, 7:24 AM, "Brian F. Cimbolic" <BCimbolic@pir.org> wrote: > > J. Scott, respectfully, what evidence is there that the Claims notice provided to registrants is not having a chilling effect for those with no intention to infringe? I understand there is not direct evidence on either side of the issue, but to say decisively that it is "Not so" about the chilling effect without providing some evidence seems unnecessarily flippant. > > Brian Cimbolic > Deputy General Counsel, Public Interest Registry > Office: +1 703 889-5752| Mobile: + 1 571 385-7871| > https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=www.pir.org&data=02%7C01%... | Facebook | Twitter | Instagram | YouTube > > > Confidentiality Note: Proprietary and confidential to Public Interest Registry. If received in error, please inform sender and then delete. > > -----Original Message----- > From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of J. Scott Evans via gnso-rpm-wg > Sent: Friday, June 09, 2017 10:19 AM > To: Rebecca Tushnet <Rebecca.Tushnet@law.georgetown.edu>; Beckham, Brian <brian.beckham@wipo.int> > Cc: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org > Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] TMCH data on abandonment > Importance: High > > I will remind the group that Abandonment is the point. The TM Claims notice is designed to inform would-be innocent infringers that there is an issue. A high abandonment rate show that the system is working. I realize those hostile to the TM Claims feel that a high abandonment rate is proof that the Claims notice is overreaching. Not so. > > J. Scott > > > J. Scott Evans > 408.536.5336 (tel) > 345 Park Avenue, Mail Stop W11-544 > Director, Trademarks > 408.709.6162 (cell) > San Jose, CA, 95110, USA > Adobe. Make It an Experience. > jsevans@adobe.com > www.adobe.com > > > > > On 6/9/17, 7:16 AM, "gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Rebecca Tushnet" <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Rebecca.Tushnet@law.georgetown.edu> wrote: > > I agree with Paul K. Unfortunately, we need better information than > that--we need to know about, of attempts that reached the stage at > which a notice would be provided, how many were abandoned. It's my > understanding--though I'd be happy to learn more--that the notice > wouldn't come when the shopping cart was filled but at checkout. > > If we just don't have the data, then it may be that our only > recommendation must be to get the data. > Rebecca Tushnet > Georgetown Law > 703 593 6759 > > > On Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 4:56 AM, Beckham, Brian <brian.beckham@wipo.int> wrote: > > Dear all, > > > > > > > > I’m not sure what is the right venue (i.e., in the sub-group, of which I am > > not a member, or to the full WG) to offer this, and it is offered merely to > > help fill out some of the questions/discussion around seeking various > > TMCH/Claims-related data. > > > > > > > > In the transcript for the Sub Team for Trademark Claims call on Friday, 02 > > June 2017 at 16:00 UTC, there was some discussion on abandonment rates. In > > summary: Rebeca Tushnet suggested it would be helpful to compare > > non-TMCH-related abandonment vs “regular” abandonment. Jeff Neuman recalled > > that during the BIZ launch there was a high abandonment. Phil Corwin > > suggested that if the non-TMCH-related abandonment rate was 80% then it may > > be reasonable to conclude that there’s not a material difference between > > those subject to claims notices. > > > > > > > > Mindful that it may be difficult or even impossible to obtain the desired > > data (a number of reasons, including competitive (dis-)advantages, were > > raised on the call), a recent GoDaddy post informs us that “An average > > website loses 69 percent of sales to abandoned carts.” A second GoDaddy > > article suggests it is 67%. > > > > > > > > See > > https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.godaddy... > > and > > > > https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.godaddy.... > > > > > > > > There are many articles on this topic with varying figures, but they tended > > to generally note abandonment rates upwards of 60%. > > > > > > > > The takeaway is that the TMCH-Claims rates observed here in the WG, while > > different/higher, are arguably not materially different than e-commerce > > statistics generally (certainly not the 20% noted by Phil Corwin as > > signaling “a significant difference in the completion of registration.”). > > > > > > > > It is important here to recall too that many members of the WG have noted > > that (for a number of reasons) registries, registrars, and registrants may > > have been sending queries in large numbers, thus skewing the data upwards. > > > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > > > > > Brian > > > > > > > > Brian Beckham | Head, Internet Dispute Resolution Section | WIPO Arbitration > > and Mediation Center > > 34 chemin des Colombettes, 1211 Geneva 20, Switzerland | T +4122 338 8247 | > > E brian.beckham@wipo.int | https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=www.wipo.int&data=02%7C01... > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > gnso-rpm-wg mailing list > > gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org > > https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.or... > _______________________________________________ > gnso-rpm-wg mailing list > gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org > https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.or... > > _______________________________________________ > gnso-rpm-wg mailing list > gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org > https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.or... > > > _______________________________________________ > gnso-rpm-wg mailing list > gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org > https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.or... -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net Web: https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=www.key-systems.net&data=... / https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=www.RRPproxy.net&data=02%... https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=www.domaindiscount24.com&... / https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=www.BrandShelter.com&data... Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=www.facebook.com%2FKeySys... https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=www.twitter.com%2Fkey_sys... Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=www.keydrive.lu&data=02%7... Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net Web: https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=www.key-systems.net&data=... / https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=www.RRPproxy.net&data=02%... https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=www.domaindiscount24.com&... / https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=www.BrandShelter.com&data... Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=www.facebook.com%2FKeySys... https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=www.twitter.com%2Fkey_sys... CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=www.keydrive.lu&data=02%7... This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone. _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.or... _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
participants (10)
-
Beckham, Brian -
Brian F. Cimbolic -
George Kirikos -
Greg Shatan -
J. Scott Evans -
Jon Nevett -
Kurt Pritz -
Phil Corwin -
Rebecca Tushnet -
Volker Greimann