Page History

Dear All,

The call for the Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) Sub Team for Trademark Claims is scheduled for Friday, 12 May 2017 at 16:00UTC for 60 minute duration.

...

3. Discuss whether the Sub Team should make a request to the broader Working Group on conducting a preliminary analysis of any data collected to answer the Charter questions

Documents:

1. Original and Updated Trademark Claims Charter Questions
2. Revised Charter Questions (following the Sub Team call of 28 April) and Updated Trademark Claims Charter Questions

Google Doc used during call: https://docs.google.com/document/d/13u5h6Wh6QUqW0vzT5q0zCTEmjMQ8_iCat6ZehLHQC7Q/edit 

Apology: Scott Austin, Justine Chew, Rebecca Tushnet

Mp3

Adobe Connect Recording

AC Chat

Attendance

Transcription

Action Items:

1. Staff to assist in identifying available data, which may helpful in answering Charter questions, as well as data that may be missing and required.

2. Staff to change wording of question 4 to: If the Review of all RPMs in all gTLDs PDP determines that non-exact matches of trademarks should be allowed inclusion in the TMCH, should the TM Claims Notice be changed, and if so, how?

3. Sub Team members may propose changes to the reworded question 4. Any proposed changes to this should be submitted before Tuesday, 16 May.

4. Staff to identify data already available in the Analysis Group revised report (including what the sources of the data were, as well as what purposes the Analysis Group studied the data), in order for the Sub Team to be able to identify what further data (and sources) might be needed

5. Sub Team to go through the updated list of questions to identify what data would be helpful/important in answering those questions, identify what data is already available and identify possible sources of data

6. Deadline for the Sub Team to sign off on final updated questions is Wednesday, 17 May

7. Staff to separate questions in Google Doc table, so that associated data to each question can be easily identifiable

Notes:

• Questions that might impact other issues that might come up during the broader WG discussion at a later date, should be captured and parked for further consideration when/if it becomes necessary 
• Consider rewording all of question 4 to make it more neutral/less leading - ACTION ITEMS for Sub Team members to make suggestions in the Google Doc 
• Truncate and do not suggest answers in question 4 - ACTION ITEM for staff: Change wording of question 4 to: If the Review of all RPMs in all gTLDs PDP determines that non-exact matches of trademarks should be allowed inclusion in the TMCH, should the TM Claims Notice be changed, and if so, how? Any proposed changes to this should be submitted before Tuesday, 16 May
• Data for answering questions:
  • Note that there has been a request for data from registries and registrars during the TMCH review, and not all of it has been provided - need to be realistic about whether it is obtainable in a timeframe that would be of assistance to this PDP 
  • From AC Chat: i think one of the important outputs from this PDP would be to identify data asks that we would have liked but had no way to get, to inform ICANN's data improvement project 
  • Some anecdotal data already available from registries, such as Uniregistry 
  • INTA has released the survey results to the CCT-RT - there may be follow-up surveys, but not clear that this data will be obtainable in a timely fashion 
  • Ideally, anecdotal data along with concrete data would be accessible 
  • Note that we do not have the ability to ask Analysis Group to do additional work as they have already completed their contracted work for ICANN. 
  • Answering Q1 would require data concerning curative rights (data that ties domain name registrations to curative rights) - Some of this data may be provided in the AG revised report - Other data would be via UDRP/URS records
  • ACTION ITEM: Staff to identify data already available in the AG revised report in order for the Sub Team to be able to identify what further data might be needed
  • From AC Chat: Amr: Could you include in the Notes what data, from what sources, for what purposes the Analysis Group studied the data?
  • Clarify four sources of data in the AG revised report 
  • Being able to identify effectiveness of the Claims Notice in specifically deterring bad-faith registrations would be helpful - as opposed to good-faith registrations/speculative registrations
  • Refer to working definition of "bad-faith registrations" in ICANN's Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy - those who have a nefarious purpose in attempting to register a domain name.
  • Data that would be important to have access to, but unlikely to get is the intent of potential registrants during domain name registration attempts
  • From AC Chat: but isn't it also the purpose of the Claims to deter "good faith" attempts to register a domain which would infringe (ie the innocent, unintentional)?  it's purpose is not limited to bad faith registrations surely
  • Data that increases understanding of whether Claims Notices have an unintended consequences of deterring good-faith registrations would also be helfpful
  • AG revised report could not make definitive determination on whether the 94% abandonment rate actually included attempted domain name registrations, which of those were bad-faith registration attempts, which were good-faith registration attempts
  • ACTION ITEM: Sub Team to go through the updated list of questions to identify what data would be helpful/important in answering those questions - identify what data is already available - identify sources of data
  • ACTION ITEM: The Sub Team should be able to sign off on the questions themselves, possibly by next Wednesday 17 May
  • ACTION ITEM: Staff to separate questions so that associated data to each question can be easily identifiable