You can scroll the document on your own. Q4 is on page 16
hand up Martin
we are really word people - it woudl be nice to see this in writing
@Kathy: Staff have not shared any text with the Sub Team Co-Chairs and so they have not had a chance to make any edits.
reading it may only confuse things...
Hand up from staff
Blind optimism about a notice we haven't fixed yet isn't a policy.
Hello. Sorry for being late.
new hand for me
My hand is up
well Rebecca many of us have been saying we should fix the notice for 3+ years but sadly ithad not happened - yet
@Phil, that’s correct.
There is broad agreement that the Notice language should be amended. We can't grapple with proposed edits until we decide if we are or are not expanding the matching criteria.
we don't know there are harms against registrants Kathy. we have a suspicion that some may have been deterred but we don't have data
+1 Kathy, non-co-chair hat
So throw the baby out w/ the bath water?If we can't eliminate teh harm let's take our toys & go home?
URS is the catch-all of the problems... so it's our basis for data
We should have new gTLDs and appropriate RPM's. URS is noted as under utilized because the remedy is temporary. Let's looks at UDRP.
you cannot just look at the URS. with the best will, it is not the dispute mechanisms of choice for many many cases because of the limitations of the remedy, and the fact that it is intended at the slam dunk cases
WIPO studies say UDRP filings are up.
Neuman rule - if it's not broken, we don't fix it.
URS has a very limited scope - how this an appropriate basis?
It is where we would see a pattern of problems if they existed in new gTLD registration.
Michael's proposal? He's in Sunrise...
Nor is there other data supporting that TM + prespecified brandrelated keyword is a source of a significant percentage of cybersquatting issues. My point is: if you want to look at evidence, URS and UDRP provide the most public evidence and no one has suggested any other evidence.
but you aren't referring to UDRP data Rebecca, only to URS, correct?
the data has not shown us these are problems
That's correct. If you have UDRP data showing that a significant % are TM + brandrelated keyword, please share it.
We evaluated a range of matches in 2009 (STI) as did IRT. We all arrived at exact match.
Question to Chair: are we collecting new data at this point in time?
@Scott -- this runs to the issue of bad faith, doesn't it?
@Kathy: There is no new data collection. The Sub Team has completed the review of all of the data collected.
Martin Silva Valent
Tx Julie for answering
@Phil that wasn't the point Scott was making. His point was that the registrant would have benefitted from receiving notice
@Phil: Procedurally, at discussion thread has been opened on Question 4 to complete the development of answers to the charter question and preliminary recommendations.
Some members of the subteam do not think we have reached the threshold to getting to proposals.
Agree Phil's comment is more about notice and less about any liabilty to registrars
Martin Silva Valent
I know Claudio you are next :-)
@Susan--unless a domain is incapable of being used in a non-infringing manner, the registrar cannot IMHO be held responsible for the registrant's subsequent infringement
Exactly...the more information the registrant has, the better.
I will point out again that we have collected zero evidence that Notice deters phishers and other intentional cybersquatters.
But also that the post-entry protection is not showing us a pattern of problems.
@Rebecca +1 and everyone agreed to that when we worked on the Notice
@Kathy confusing similarity as well because the use of a business descriptor is a common term not sufficiently distinctive to avoid a finding of confusing similarity. It may also support bad faith as well but the issue I am raising re the addition of the business descriptor is primarily related to prong 1 of the udrp.
It's disingenous to suggest that the Claims Notice does not deter intentional cybersquatters. Evidence will be impossible to obtain since cybersquatters won't detail thei ilicit activity.
To Rebecca's earlier point above, even assuming no evidence that notices deter intentional cybersquatters/phishers/etc., the notice still serves a useful purpose in downstream legal action, because it can then be shown that the person proceeded in disregard of the notice and being aware of the relevant rights; it is a key component of pleading wilful infringement, bnad faith, etc.