Page History

PROPOSED AGENDA

Draft Agenda:

1. Summary of actions and notes from the 01 February meeting re: Part 3 of the Compilation of Current URS Discussion Documents – The Co-Chairs’ Statement on URS Review

2. Staff presentation of possible URS case review framework

 BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS

Summary of Action Items and Notes RPM WG Meeting 01 Feb 2018.pdf

Compilation of Current URS Discussion Documents - 01 February 2018.pdf

Rebecca Tushnet Draft URS Case Review Template - 01 Feb 2018_example.pdf

URS_Outcomes.pdf

Notes/ Action Items

Action Items:

1. Staff to recirculate the latest version of the Compilation of Current URS Discussion Documents (see attached document);

2. NEXT 48 HOURS: Staff seeks direction from the Working Group on whether they should proceed with data extraction for all URS cases, some URS cases, or no URS cases.  If some URS cases, then staff can extract data based on specific data elements to be agreed by the Working Group (e.g. types of cases for which such data extraction is deemed needed).

NOTES:

1. Summary of actions and notes from the 01 February meeting re: Part 3 of the Compilation of Current URS Discussion Documents – The Co-Chairs’ Statement on URS Review

-- Action 1 has been completed by staff.

-- Action 2 is for WG members.

-- Alternative questions suggested for Section M, column 3.  Added as a comment.

-- Post on list about two decisions -- one was extremely minimal and one was much more expansive (like a UDRP).  Hope for something in between.

2. Staff presentation of possible URS case review framework

Staff Introduction:

-- In light of the discussions that took place on the mailing list through to today -- from reviewing URS cases there are some fundamental questions from the staff perspective that need to be decided by the WG.

1) Whether or not the WG would like to review all 800+ URS cases; -- or --

2) Review just some of the URS cases; and if so identify the categories or types of cases, data elements that you want to extract from the cases, to put into a spreadsheet that staff can report on.

-- Example, if there are 4 or 5 buckets then staff could pre-populated a spreadsheet and then you could see the number of cases in each bucket.

-- This is not the same as substantive/qualitative/subjective review -- just the above 2 questions: 1) buckets 2) cases for a more detailed review -- what the review will be is a question for later.

-- Third option is to review none of the cases.

Discussion:

-- What is the point of doing this?  Staff perspective: The directive for all PDPs is to do data-driven policy development.  Data on Sunrise and TMCH -- work by staff.  Question is whether as part of this directive it is necessary or appropriate to review URS cases.  If that is necessary you have to decide whether that is all, some, or none.

-- Some review of the administration of the URS; making sure it's being done properly. On case review -- some decisions are lacking recitation of relevant facts so are to make a judgement.  Just to make sure the providers understand the evidentiary requirement, for example.  Could look at a statistical sample.  Rebecca Tushnet could respond on what she is doing.

-- No agreement to do a qualitative review, and that is not proposed at this point.  Need to do the data extraction first.

-- URS is a new proceeding.  We are tasked with determining if it is working and the way to determine that is to look at the cases.

-- Note the concern about undertaking a qualitative review.  No decision has been made or will be made on this call.  If we did do it, it would be by volunteers agreeing to review a set number of cases.

-- One alternative is to look at the decisions that would give an outside reader enough information to make an assessment.

-- Seems to be an assumption by some that there are elements missing in decisions, and to do a review to see where those elements that are missing, but we haven't discussed what elements should go into a decision.  Could ask the panelists if they applied the clear and convincing standard, or if they understand what it is.

Presentation -- Berry Cobb:

-- In relation to the presentation, staff questions for the whole WG are: (1) Do you think, as part of data-driven policy making, the WG should review all, some (or none, per Greg) URS cases? And (2) If some, what types of cases ("buckets", per Berry) should those be?

URS Cases and Distribution

-- Help the WG to identify buckets to review. For "buckets", you could consider Appeals, Responses, "dictionary word" disputed domains, etc.

-- Where possible we need to be data-driven policy development, per the ICANN Bylaws.

-- The approach from this data-driven exercise started with the presentation in Abu Dhabi and also in early January.  Look on the providers' sites for things that are out of band -- take away that there are 14 cases that had an appeal, 225+ had some sort of response, 44 were withdrawn, the default suspension bucket is where we might find additional elements to help the WG in a review.

-- Automation has taken us as far as we can; the next step is human intervention with a coding framework to identify where we might have further deliberation -- such as responses to the cases.

-- Looking at whether there can be synergy between our effort and Rebecca's effort -- although these are two completely different efforts.

-- Focusing on a quantitative component to help identify out-of-band cases.

-- Source data is scraped from the URS providers' sites and the WHOIS.

Coding Framework:

-- NOTE: the WG will still need to identify the specific types of cases ("buckets") to review; the template Berry is discussing only shows how the data from those cases can be captured.

-- Two URS cases:  Many of these need to be manually filled in.

-- Notes to help understand some of the nuances of the fields -- such as if complainent is not successful, TM analysis.  

-- Case analysis -- if we aggregate the data at a macro level are there trends.

-- The cases where an appeal was included in that transaction, perhaps those 14 would be the best place to start since it would validate this coding framework and help us to identify the elements, and show us the beginning to end dynamics. 

Discussion:

-- "renewed" can be listed as another outcome in the "Domain Disposition" column, since under the current remedy registrants are able to renew the domain and continue using it.

-- What is different from what Staff will be doing versus Rebecca?  Rebecca's research will focus on classifying the trademark interactions -- does the type of trademark affect the outcome?  Does the TLD interaction with the trademark affect the outcome?  Collecting the data to see if that is happening.

-- Question: In terms of the classification of types of trademark -- that would be based on the determination stated by the panelist?  Will there be a category for which service provider the decision arises from?  Rebecca: There is an element for the case provider.  For my research, if the examiner said it will put it in if there is coder agreement on it.  Assume the WG will not adopt the TM classification part of it.

-- Question: What is the timing of Rebecca's research?  Depends on if she can get a second RA.

-- Question: Not clear what is the purpose of the call today.  Input to Rebecca's research and elements that are useful to this WG.  The purpose of this call was to look at all the data we have now and the data is going to look out in order to identify a set of data points that we can use to help us to narrow the field of cases to review.

-- This is a template for gathering data to then decide what cases to review. 

-- Question: Language of the TLD and notice -- any notation on that?

-- Seems as though what is in the template is outside of scope.

-- From staff: Scope and nature of this presentation -- staff framing of this discussion, that the WG is being asked to decide what are the URS cases you would like to review, all, some, or none.  If there are some, if you can identify thte types of cases that may merit further consideration (5 buckets) we would put those cases into a spreadsheet somewhat like this.  Based on that data report you can decide if there is a need to go further with any of them, but that comes later.  The spreadsheet was worked on by Rebecca's RA, it is not a staff template, but we didn't think we should alter the template, but called out columns that are not purely data focused or may not be useful for the focus of this PDP.

-- So: 1) review all cases, some, none; 2) decide on which cases and staff can collect them in the spreadsheet; based on the data the WG can later decide which URS cases to give a further review.

-- Are we looking at process or substance?  Okay to look at process and those that don't require judgement.

3. Next meeting: 14 February 1800 UTC

-- Next steps: Not clear what the WG wishes to do.  Staff perspective is that the WG needs to let staff know if they should proceed with data extraction -- all cases, some cases, no cases.  If some cases, then we extract data based on specific data elements to be agreed by the Working Group (e.g. types of cases for which such data extraction is deemed needed).

-- Only suggestion is for the WG to think about the (above) questions and take suggestions from the mailing list for the next 48 hours.  Then figure out the best use of their time next week.