Page History

PROPOSED AGENDA

1. Roll call (via Adobe Connect and phone bridge only); updates to Statements of Interest
2. Continue discussion of Draft Collated Trademark Claims Data Proposal (dated 12 August, available on the Working Group wiki here: https://community.icann.org/x/ShMhB[community.icann.org])
3. Next steps/next meeting

BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS

1. Draft Proposal - Data Collection for TM Claims - 12 August 2017

Notes/ Action Items

Action Items:

1. Staff to move the comment relating to Suggested Source #1 for Question 3 (presenting the Claims Notice to potential registrants in different regions) from column 3 to column 1, noting that this was a suggestion made by the Trademark Claims Sub Team
2. Staff to move the comment relating to Suggested Source #2 for Question 3 (translations of the survey for registrants from jurisdictions where the primary language is not English) from column 3 to column 1, noting that this was a suggestion made by the Trademark Claims Sub Team
3. Staff to revise numbering of the suggested data sources for Question 4 to reflect more accurately the actual numbering of the various sub-questions
4. Staff to recirculate the links to the INTA cost impact survey to the WG mailing list

Notes:

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.

1.  Roll call (via Adobe Connect and phone bridge only); updates to Statements of Interest

2.  Continue discussion of Draft Collated Trademark Claims Data Proposal (dated 12 August, available on the Working Group wiki above) 

• WG not meant to duplicate data collection/analysis performed by the Analysis Group (AG)
• URS data being collected - intent is to use whois data to determine whether domains being disputed via URS were registered corresponding to an open Claims Notice Period for that gTLD – this would not inform the WG whether or not there was a corresponding TMCH registration of the string in question
• May be useful to perform a similar analysis on UDRP data on new gTLD domain name registrations

• Question 1:
  • Intended effect of TM Claims is deterring infringing registrations in new gTLDs
  • Surveys of registrants and registrars are required for both Sunrise and Trademark Claims – WG needs to determine whether to consolidate surveys for both purposes, and whether professional assistance will be required (presumption is that professional assistance will be required to design the survey)
  • Survey of registrars: Is there an assumption that the cost of the TMCH is limited to abandonment with no other associated costs – would customer service costs for registrars associated with TM Claims contribute to unintended consequence?
  • Focus of question is on the positive and negative impacts of the Claims Notice, not data relevant to a broader review of the TMCH
  • Staff question on the meaning or intent of “more granular data” regarding the percentage of those who abandoned registration attempts in response to a notice
  • Since the target of the survey is on registrants, not potential registrants who have abandoned their registration attempts, seems highly unlikely that the data collected will provide insight on those who were deterred during the registration process regarding both potentially infringing registrations, which were abandoned or abandonment of a potential good-faith registration which did not proceed due to a chilling effect
  • Purpose of potentially employing a professional survey designer would be to maximize the benefit and usefulness of any data collected
• Question 2:
  • Suggestion to amend the introduction to read "..., in order for it to have its intended effect, and reduce any unintended effects...,"
  • Despite the dependencies of the WG approach to question 2 on the answers to question 1, which are yet to be determined, data collection for question 2 needs to proceed in parallel to take advantage of the limited timeframe available to the WG to gather data, and perform an analysis
  • Data requirements for question 1 are larger than those for question 2 - question 1 is focused on data that will assist in answering the preliminary questions about what is good and what is bad regarding the Claims Notice service in order to understand the context, while question 2 is more focused on making sense of this data to develop recommendations
  • Staff update on comments regarding question 2: Data collection on URS cases being conducted by staff may be able to supplement what was already done by the AG, particularly since data collection by the AG was up to a time period within 2016, while the data currently being collected by staff is more up-to-date
• Question 3:
  • If the Claims Notice is only sent to registrants who complete domain name registrations, this would shift the purpose of the Notice - would no longer be to deter bad faith registrations, but rather deterring bad-faith use following registration
  • Survey on this question was intended to also cover average Internet users to gauge their understanding of the Claims Notice
  • Subjective qualitative analysis of data will be required in order to make decisions and develop recommendations
  • Intent of Sub Team was not only to survey previous registrants/potential registrants on their impression of the Claims Notice, but also prospective registrants on how they would perceive the Notice should they be presented with it in the future
  • Question 3(a)iii. on the effectiveness of translated versions of the Claims Notice requires the survey to be conducted across different regions in which different languages are commonly used
  • ACTION ITEM: Staff to move the comment relating to Suggested Source #1 for Question 3 (presenting the Claims Notice to potential registrants in different regions) from column 3 to column 1, noting that this was a suggestion made by the Trademark Claims Sub Team
  • ACTION ITEM: Staff to move the comment relating to Suggested Source #2 for Question 3 (translations of the survey for registrants from jurisdictions where the primary language is not English) from column 3 to column 1, noting that this was a suggestion made by the Trademark Claims Sub Team
• Question 4:
  • Should the Claims Notice be generated as a result of non-exact matches, the language of Claims Notice will likely require amendment
  • Significant professional assistance required to meet data requirements concerning creation of semantics of programming that can be used to test the historical data to see how many Claims Notices may be generated by non-exact matches – will require proposals to be developed and submitted to the GNSO Council
  • Source material for data relevant to this question not yet identified
  • ACTION ITEM: Staff to revise numbering of the suggested data sources for Question 4 to reflect more accurately the actual numbering of the various sub-questions
• Question 5:
  • Somewhat of a disconnect between the intent of the question (question on length of Claims Period) and the explanation and discussion on data being sought (suggests that Claims Periods may not be required at all for some gTLDs)
  • Question's intent was to be broad, and cover all aspects of the Claims Period (including must there be one) such as for Brand, Geo or Community gTLDs – different scenarios or business models for gTLDs may with require distinctions between how Claims Periods should be applicable to different gTLDs

3.  Next steps/next meeting

• Development of a request to the Council for professional assistance for data collection in time for the September GNSO Council meeting
• Intent of call next week is discussion of the results of INTA cost impact survey - may require more than one meeting to cover
• ACTION ITEM: Staff to recirculate the links to the INTA cost impact survey to the WG mailing list
• Next WG call on Thursday, 31 August at 03:00 UTC