Page History

...

• Original questions remain in the table (used as a reference point), but reworded to be more neutral/less biased
• Questions also reworded to be less suggestive of a specific answer, and to not presume that there is a problem that needs fixing
• Updated Q1 is a consolidation/batching of 3 original Charter questions
• Sub Team wanted to be specific about who was being referred to in the questions, and did not want to ascribe intent - references to registrants/potential registrants/users changes to “domain name applicants” who may or may not intend on completing a registration (check footnote in Sub Team report)
• Question 2 addresses unique ways in which gTLDs may be operated – meant to serve as an easy transition from Q1 addressing more specific questions raised in the Charter
• Question 4 addresses proposals by Michael Graham, Greg Shatan and Brian Winterfeldt on expansion of use of the Trademark Claims Notice for non-exact matches
• Question 4 drafted in a way to identify whether a problem exists before suggesting any potential solutions
• Question 4 also addresses potential unintended consequences of solutions, as well as practicality of suggestions for implementation (both human involvement and technology/software solutions)
• Questions on data requirements/collection specific to registrars, and largely addressing abandonment rates, are included in the data column
• Consolidation of data collection should be considered, and should take the issue of confidentiality during data collection seriously
• Might be helpful to conduct a review of UDRP/URS decisions, which should involve a survey – could be done via academic participants conducting research, having a law firm to sponsor a law clerk for research or potentially have ICANN commission a study
• If research on UDRP/URS is conducted, it should cover them generally, as well as specific aspects of dispute data relevant to Trademark Claims
• ICANN monthly registry reports contains data that may be useful – study behavior/ratios of disputes resulting from registrations during the Claims Notice Period vs after it is over
• From AC Chat: Event Study Methodology: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2017-June/002130.html (using registry data we already have, see if various metrics change after the end of the TM Claims period)
• Data available in the Analysis Group revised report
• ACTION ITEM: WG members should review data requirements and notes on data from the revised Analysis Group report
• Data on UDRP/URS should not be challenging - providers have search functionality on their websites
• In consideration of a consolidation of data collection of UDRP/URS cases, data gathering efforts should not conflate the purposes of the two phases of this PDP
• From AC Chat: Perhaps a good starting point might be the AG report and analysis. Then the WG can decide what else is missing or needs to be done or followed up on.
• Data should include collection of relevant data on domain names that were registered and did not result in disputes (UDRP/URS)

...