The call for the Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) Sub Team for Trademark Claims is scheduled for Friday, 2 June 2017 at 16:00 UTC for 60 minute duration.

09:00 PDT, 12:00 EDT, 17:00 London 18:00 CET

For other times: http://tinyurl.com/y9o37q3n 

PROPOSED AGENDA: 

1.  Finalize Charter Questions
2. Proceed with discussion on data gathering

Documents:

1. Trademark Claims Charter Questions - Updated & Simplified Table
2. Trademark Claims Charter Questions - Updated & Simplified Table - google doc
   
3. Notes on Abandonment Rate Data from Trademark Claims Sub Team Call - 26 May 2017

Apology: Beth Allegretti, Michael Graham

Mp3

Adobe Connect Recording

AC Chat

Attendance

Transcription

Action Items:

1. The document “Notes on Abandonment Rate Data” is to be preserved as it is now
2. Staff to review the Analysis Group report for domain names that are exact matches to records in the TMCH, and subsequently leading to a UDRP/URS being filed
3. Staff to capture notes from today’s call and summarize this document’s (Notes on Abandonment Rate Data) contents to be placed at the end of the Charter questions
4. Staff to add outcomes and results of this conversation in the “Sub Team Suggestions on Data Collection” column of the “Trademark Claims Charter Questions - Updated & Simplified Table”
5. Staff to add this document “Notes on Abandonment Rate Data” as an appendix to the “Trademark Claims Charter Questions – Updated & Simplified Table”

These high-level notes are designed to help PDP WG members navigate through the content of the call and are not meant as a substitute for the transcript and/or recording. The MP3, transcript, and chat are provided separately and are posted on the wiki here.

Notes:

1. Finalize Charter Questions
   • Finalized Charter questions already presented to full WG for review and feedback - no feedback yet provided
   • Intent is to leave Original Charter Questions in the deliverable to the WG
   • Updated questions finalized at this point, and meant to guide the work of the Sub Team on how to answer Original Charter questions, and what data is required to answer them
2. Proceed with discussion on data gathering
   • Sub Team not giving substantive review of data needed - only clarify what might be required, and how easily available the data is
   • Staff documented ideas from last week's call on abandonment rate data
   • Sub Team to now recommend additional data that may be helpful in consideration of the abandonment rate as presented by the Analysis Group in their revised report
   • Empty column on the right for Sub Team to provide comments on data collection
   • Sub Team not meant to provide substantive discussion on data available, but rather recommend what data is required to address Charter questions
   • Question 1.a.
     • Can data be obtained to assist in answering this question?
     • Analysis Group did reach out to registrars and registries, but was not able to get this data - might be challenging obtaining this data from contracted parties
     • This same data was unsuccessfully pursued by the TMCH data gathering group - Can ICANN acquire this data from contracted parties?
     • Registrars may not be agreeable to providing this data - may involve competitive issues
     • Registrars have, and continue to discuss internally what data could be shared that would not disclose any information detrimental to competition
     • Proposal to set up a small panel of registries and registrars to acquire anecdotal evidence - is there value or risk in hearing stories regarding what information is shareable
     • From AC Chat: @Roger, thank you for sharing. QUESTION - is there some way (e.g. trusted third party) that registrars would feel comfortable providing generalized data to, who can then compile it as a full anonymized list?
     • A high-level set of data might be obtainable, but need to first determine to what extent this would be helpful in providing/influencing direction to the PDP WG
   • Classification of data sets by ease of acquisition:
     • Red: Very hard or impossible
     • Yellow: Hard or somewhat unlikely
     • Green: Available data
     • There could be data that is valuable, but simply too difficult or impossible to collect – this needs to be communicated to the WG
   • Question 1.b.
     • Anecdotal data required for this question would be available if registrars are willing and able to share
   • Question 1.c., 1.d., 1.e., 1.f., 1.g., 1.h., 1.i.:
     • Data also needed from registrars
     • Would need to rely on registrar data to confirm this statement
     • Data from registrars that may be helpful and obtainable is: at what point in the registration process a trademark record is downloaded – does this happen when domain names are placed in carts, or does it happen when payment/attempted registrations are done later in the process?
     • Many registrars take orders for domain names before general availability – preorders do not normally result in Claims notices being presented until within 48 hours of general availability – how does this contribute to the abandonment rate?
     • Would also need to know the abandonment rate associated with reasons other than a Claims notice being triggered – what is the difference between abandonment rates between those who trigger Claims Notices, and those who don’t – this might be a valuable piece of data that might not present the risk of disclosing competitive information
     • An overview of how the general registrar processes leading up to Claims Notices and checkout processes work (during pre-order, general availability, after Claims period has expired) might be helpful, and possibly obtainable
     • From AC Chat: Some of the basic information is in the TMCH Requirements and Functional Specs, though of course each registrar differs in its actual timing/practice to some extent, e.g. "The Claims Notice MUST be provided by the registrar at the time of potential registration in real time, without cost to the prospective domain name registrant, and MUST be in the form specified in the Claims Notice Form."
     • List of suggestions for data around abandonment should be documented, and referred to the WG
     • Abandonment rate question is a wild goose chase - Proof of concept report in 2004 (.biz) launch of IP claims, there was no way for the registry to know why registrations were abandoned (there was a high rate of abandonment then as well) - staff might be able to get this data to better understand a comparison of the high rate of abandonment then, and in the study by the AG
     • Would registrants be willing to participate in surveys during the next round of new gTLDs – for anecdotal evidence on why registrations are being abandoned?
     • There is a process by which GNSO WG's can acquire data either internal or external to ICANN (possibly via third-parties), if the data is substantively helpful in answering PDP Charter questions - this data can be anonymized
     • ICANN can work with registrars via a possible third-party to anonymize data
     • A comparison between abandonment rates following triggering of Claims Notices, and those not triggering them might be helpful (could be anonymized) - might be useful in understanding the need to expand the generation of notices for more than identical matches of trademark string registration attempts
     • Comparison could be between abandonment of registrations that trigger Claims Notices, and abandonment of registrations under legacy gTLDs, for which RPMs have not been applicable
     • Not all registrars keep records of when and why abandonment takes place – might be more achievable to keep records on this in future rounds, than rely on past data
     • Can the Analysis Group provide anonymized data (percentages, not raw numbers) on specific registrars that downloaded trademark records, without providing registration services during the Claims Period?
   • Question 2.d.:
     • Category for this data is yellow: not impossible, but difficult to get
     • What is the correlation between domain names that were registered during the Claims Period, and subsequently subject to a UDRP/URS? Objective is to determine if the registrant was on notice when the domain was registered, then subsequently resulted in a UDRP/URS filed
     • Move and make as a separate column/category as it's broader than abandonment rate.
     • Also clarify that it is looking at exact match cases that were brought w.r.t. domains registered during the Claims Period (and so subject to a Claims Notice) and those that were not; and similar clarification/distinction for non-exact matches.
     • ACTION ITEM: Staff to review AG report to see how much of this has been done.
     • SUGGESTION: Ask FORUM and WIPO for assistance in obtaining raw data of cases (new gTLDs only).
   • Keep both documents (Charter questions and discussion of data relevant to abandonment rate), especially this one as a record of data discussions. For the Charter Questions table, fill in the right-hand data column with the outcome of today's discussions (note Q3, 4, 5: missing suggestions for data).
   • ACTION ITEM: The document “Notes on Abandonment Rate Data” is to be preserved as it is now
   • ACTION ITEM: Staff to capture notes from today and summarize this document’s contents to be placed at the end of the charter questions
   • ACTION ITEM: Staff to add outcomes and results of this conversation in the “Sub Team Suggestions on Data Collection” column of the Trademark Claims Charter Questions - Updated & Simplified Table
   • ACTION ITEM: Staff to add this document “Notes on Abandonment Rate Data” as an appendix to the “Trademark Claims Charter Questions – Updated & Simplified Table”
3. NEXT CALL - next Friday – 9 June at 16:00 UTC