2019-01-02 Sub team for Trademark Claims Data Review
- Julie Bisland
- Aleksey Khapchenko
- Julie Hedlund
The Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) Sub Team for Trademark Claims Data Review is scheduled on Wednesday, 02 January 2019 at 17:00 UTC for 60 minutes.
09:00 PST, 12:00 EST, 18:00 Paris CET, 22:00 Karachi PKT, (Thursday) 02:00 Tokyo JST, (Thursday) 04:00 Melbourne AEDT
For other times: https://tinyurl.com/y8avbeb6
PROPOSED AGENDA
ACTION ITEM: By 1300 UTC, Wednesday, 02 January 2018, analyze whether / how the data in "Actual & Potential Registrants", “Registry & Registrars”, and “Trademark Owners” tabs answer the agreed question 1 and its sub questions (a) and (b), in the spreadsheet at: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1aBw-dW2gBzvBfhUgl3u6ShWlPZt0yyNF-Vs1qmUuIjg/edit#gid=381275905 and add your comments/suggestions in the summary table (to be provided, see action item 1) [BY 02 Jan] See:
Question 1 (Final Charter Questions for Trademark Claims) Is the Trademark Claims service having its intended effect? Consider the following questions specifically in the context both of a Claims Notice as well as a Notice of Registered Name:
a) Is the Trademark Claims service having its intended effect of deterring bad-faith registrations and providing Claims Notice to domain name applicants?
b) Is the Trademark Claims service having any unintended consequences, such as deterring good-faith domain name applications?
Draft Agenda:
1. Review agenda/Statements of Interest
2. Select Sub Team Leader
3. Continue survey analysis
4. AOB
BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS
Claims Charter Q1 Review of Analysis Group Survey Results (2 January 2019) - Google Docs
RECORDINGS
PARTICIPATION
Notes/ Action Items
Actions:
Sub Team Homework (see the separate Homework email for instructions):
By Wednesday 9 January 2019 at 13:00 UTC, the Trademark Claims Sub Team is tasked to provide input in the worksheet set up for:
- Claims Charter Question 1: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1A5PSNNrAFS2bFvNoMFx-5DQUNhXpnocOrEbT1XL480E/edit?usp=sharing [docs.google.com] (for those who haven’t provided input before 2 January)
- Claims Charter Question 2: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1hvt63HvVdNdYIZxKVMXHq3fIEFxfnweT0F3ZXsJU_Q8/edit?usp=sharing [docs.google.com]
- Claims Charter Question 3: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WLE91cg73avpWHkzczNCnxw1ALWyhWqGZOnnrmqTsH4/edit?usp=sharing [docs.google.com]
Notes:
1. Statements of Interest: No updates
2. Select Sub Team Leader:
-- Martin Silva has volunteered for Co-Chair.
-- Greg Shatan may volunteer depending on the Co-Chair situation in the Sunrise Sub Team.
3. Continue survey analysis:
See the Google Doc worksheets at: https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/2RuoBg.
General Discussion:
-- Question: Go through this document/homework or directly go back to the survey and see if we agree that we have enough data on each question so we can send the next homework chart?
-- Q1(a) Could add footnote that translations could be provided in the language of the registration agreement. Putting some foreshadowing to translations is helpful, but there is no specific data about translations. Noting that we aren't developing recommendations yet, but noting where we might be able to do so.
-- Could put potential recommendations in italics or some other formatting.
On Kristine Dorrain's comments:
-- Might want to consider further measures for recidivist cybersquatters.
-- "Industry players" -- purposely vague; could be lots of different people. Point is that if you are already in the know, you know.
-- On cybersquatters -- distinguishing between committed cybersquatters from those who might not know they there are running into a problem.
-- Point out that between 1(a) and 1(b) there are two sides to one coin. The question is whether the right sorts of people are being deterred.
On George Kirikos’s comments:
-- On the last paragraph -- assumes registry's negative impact is in an unintended consequence. I think it is part of the compromise, it wasn't unintended.
-- 83% proceeded after having gotten the claims notice, 17% stopped. Not large-scale deterrence.
-- The magnitude of the impact might be higher than was expected.
-- Avoid results oriented analysis.
-- we're not coming to conclusions here and unless anyone has more to add on top of what George, Griffin, and I added, are we moving to Charter Q2 for next week?
4. AOB -- ICE data on domain name takedowns (hold for next meeting)