2018-01-17 Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in all gTLDs PDP WG

Notes/ Action Items

Action Items:

-- Staff will update the high-level questions in the Compilation of Current URS Discussion Documents based on the suggested edits from the 17 January meeting.

Notes:

1. Staff presentation – updated data on URS cases (follow up from initial staff presentation at ICANN60 – see attached updated tables and charts):

Recommendation from the WG: That ICANN should explore with the providers gathering data in a standard form -- can we make that recommendation now?  Also, ensure data is collected and maintained on an ongoing basis, it may be equally important to recommend that this be reported and stored in a uniform and consistent way.

Page 1:  General graph and table (Chart 1) of gTLDs delegated by year by type.

Page 2: URS Definition and Data

-- Data set characteristics -- scope includes data to the conclusion of 2017, the previous was through June 3,0 2017.  However, there are 12 cases in pending status, that it depends on when they are decided -- end of 2017 or beginning of 2018.

-- Refresh the data when we get closer to publishing an initial report.

Page 3: 

Table 1: URS Macro Statistics -- 2.25 Avg. Domain/Case typo.

Table 2: Distribution of cases by provider.  80 total cases that were new and entered into this data set.  Biggest change from prior version: when we are looking at the raw data it is by cases and there are cases that have multiple domains.  This is a different version of the same data set, but by cases.  The main takeaway is a downward number of cases from quantity of cases filed in 2014 than those in 2017.

Page 5: Tables 4 & 5: Number of URS Cases and Number of Disputed Domains Within Those Cases

-- Feedback from Abu Dhabi -- whether a case was commenced within a particular gTLD Trademark Claims window.  Get an idea of when the commencement date occurred within the defined window.  Staff recommendation: This table doesn't serve the intent of truly understanding whether a claims notification resulted in a URS or a UDRP.  Staff is working on getting a fresh data set from IBM -- look at the actual domains that were registered and compare with the domain identified in these URS cases.  Suggest doing away with this chart.  Future would have by TLD number of cases, by TLD the number of domains.

Page 7:

Table 6, Chart 3: Quantity of URS cases, categorized by result (e.g. suspension) and determination type (e.g. default determination), and listed by provider.

Page 8: visual representation of table.

-- Example: Suspended and default -- 531 cases that had a default suspension.  Breakout by provider -- 1 was appealed based on that original default determination.  Of 178 Final Determination cases 10 were appealed.  Final is the Default/Final -- examiner had the option to publish both outcomes of the case, as in the URS rules. 

Page 9: Table 7 -- Average URS Case Duration in Number of Days, by Domains within Case.

Discussion:

-- Question re: bullet point 3 on page 2 under Data Set Characteristics:  How did a .pro or .cn have a URS applied against it?  Did .pw sign up to be included in the URS?  Staff response: For .cn and .pw TLDs they are included in the raw data and presented on the provider's sit.  .pro registry agreement was renegotiated with ICANN that does now include the URS in early 2017.  There were two cases that were filed for a .pro TLD -- one was suspended and one was denied.  Filtered out because they were out of scope.

-- Leaving {blank} -- could be confusing.  Staff response: Reason we added the last column of description -- on page 7: if we went back and said "no appeal" to remove that in the graph we would have to change the raw data.  Trying to stay true to the data on the provider's site.  You can disregard the blank rows.

-- Question: Table 7 -- does it include the time taken to get to an appeal?  Staff response: All we have is what we have scraped from the provider's site -- commencement date and end date.  Will go back to confirm.

-- Page numbers are missing.  Staff response: They have now been added.

-- 6.3 URS Procedure states "All Default cases proceed to Examination for review on the merits of the claim." Worth dropping in as a footnote.

-- Re: de novo review -- how many registrants file 6 months after default via the de novo review?  Staff response: Looking at this data scraped from the search pages from the provider's site don't think this will state which aspects of these cases include the de novo review.  The way this information is presented on the provider's site: if there is a final determination, appeal, or default final means that there was some sort of response in general by the registrant.  It is not automatically presented by the providers -- could get it from a case review.

-- There were at least 14 cases where that has occurred -- outside the 14 days but within the 6 months.  If it wasn't reported we wouldn't know.

-- On the face of the data without going to request information from the providers if they have it or by looking at the case, but it can be derived you can find the providers note abusive complaints.

-- Staff response: When the staff are pulling the data we are getting to all of the cases that exist out there.  There is a limited amount of data.  To search for abuse mechanisms -- if through the case review, asking the provider, or getting from the site: need to understand what the WG wants staff to add to the data set.  Staff can do it (but note that not all providers provide the same fields for search/checking off) but this is not in the data we have. We do not have data reported to ICANN in a uniform format by all the providers.  This is something the WG may wish to consider, to have reporting done on a regular basis and in a consistent and uniform manner.

-- If additional issues come up if staff available to do additional research.  Staff response: Staff is working on with the Co-Chairs is the type of research and review of the data we have and the cases you want to study, how to do this, who is best to do this, and what reporting elements should be extracted.

2.         Working Group discussion – standardized questions for each of the listed URS review topics (see updated URS Discussion Document, circulated on Friday 12 January and posted here as a 12 January update: https://community.icann.org/x/tAxyB[community.icann.org)

Summary: Keep the 5 questions as they are, but add "why or why not" to question 1 and change Question 5 to: "What was the ultimate outcome?".  Take the suggestions to the list.

General:

-- In applying these questions, should acknowledge that they may be selectively applied.  Some will be applicable and some not.

-- One way we might look at these questions? If we answer each of these five questions - will we have the information necessary to make policy recommendations?

-- Note that the original charter questions were biased and we agreed not to redraft them?  Include that the charter questions came from the Council in the WG charter.

1) Has it been used? 

-- Add "if not why not?"

2) What was the original purpose and is it being fulfilled?

3) Bearing in mind the original purpose, have there been any unintended consequences?

4) What changes could better align the mechanism with the original purpose/facilitate it to carry out its purpose?

-- What is "original purpose" referring to in questions 2, 3, and 4? Assume a specific provision within the URS.  Original purpose -> as applied to the mechanism.  Concern that if we proceed that all of the original provisions in the URS that those should remain, don't think that is correct.  WG can recommend changes to provisions in the URS.

-- Or do we ask, "Is the original purpose still relevant?"

-- Subsidiary or related questions could be – “How would the proposed change affect the complainant and registrant?” and “What if any impact would the proposed on the cost and efficiency of the URS?”

5) How many managed to prevail?

-- This is a basic data gathering question -- change to: "What was the ultimate outcome?"