RE: [gnso-dt-wg] RE: Collecting Facts

["Jeffrey Eckhaus" <jeckhaus@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Margie,

 

Would you please be able to provide the research methodology used for
your statistics in the Brandjacking Index? Especially the tasting
/kiting numbers you will share. While everyone here appreciates as much
information as possible we need to make sure it statistically correct
and not biased 

 

Thanks

 

 

Jeff

 

 

 

________________________________

From: owner-gnso-dt-wg@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-dt-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Margie Milam
Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2007 11:54 AM
To: Mike Rodenbaugh; Marilyn Cade; GNSO.SECRETARIAT@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: gnso-dt-wg@xxxxxxxxx; BC List
Subject: RE: [gnso-dt-wg] RE: Collecting Facts

 

MarkMonitor is publishing its next quarterly BrandJacking Index at the
end of August, and should have some useful statistics to share with our
group with respect to major brands and the types of associated kiting at
that time.  

 

These statistics are a snapshot of the tasting/kiting over a 6 month
period involving strings that include approximately 32 of the world's
most recognized brands, and the number of dropped and reregistered
domains.  Examination of specific incidents will reveal suspicious
behavior that highlights the nature of domain tasting and kiting
activity that is targeted at these famous brands.

 

The research will contain only trend data not WHOIS information.
Unfortunately, because the registrars engaged in this activity block
WHOIS access after a few lookups, there is little registrant data
available though the evidence, but the information should nevertheless
be valuable for this group.

 

Margie 

 

 

 

________________________________

From: owner-gnso-dt-wg@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-dt-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh
Sent: Monday, July 30, 2007 5:54 PM
To: Marilyn Cade; GNSO.SECRETARIAT@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: gnso-dt-wg@xxxxxxxxx; BC List
Subject: [gnso-dt-wg] RE: feedback on the questionnaire 'directions'

 

Marilyn, thanks for your comments.  All observers do have posting
privileges to the list.

 

This RFI is only one part of the data gathering that is underway.  I
believe it does give all stakeholders an opportunity to give their views
about the harms and benefits of tasting, and a range of potential
solutions that have been discussed in the community for some time now.
There is consensus among the 'small ad hoc group' that it would be
valuable to get this feedback at this stage, and also ask for additional
potential solutions.  

 

Of course I am keenly interested in documenting the harm to businesses
other than registrars and registries, yet I understand that is difficult
to do other than anecdotally.  I am hopeful that MarkMonitor or other
similar companies may be able to come up with some aggregate data at
least as to their customers or based on a statistically significant
sample.  I agree that Bruce has made some excellent suggestions, two of
the three were already underway at least in part, and we will look at
the third closely to see if we can gather appropriate data.

 

Mike Rodenbaugh

 

________________________________

From: Marilyn Cade [mailto:marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Sunday, July 29, 2007 4:01 PM
To: 'GNSO.SECRETARIAT@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx'; Mike Rodenbaugh
Cc: gnso-dt-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: feedback on the questionnaire 'directions'

 

I am only an observer to this group, so don't have posting privileges,
and have asked the GNSO Secretariat to post my comments on the
questionnaire that the ad hoc group is developing. I have copied the
chair. I speak as an individual who asked to be added as an observer. 

 

The present discussion, as I can track it on the 'list' is focused on
possible 'solutions', but seems to be missing the need, as I thought was
made clear in the staff's issues report  for more data.  More data
should include more data about those who are being affected by 'tasting'
and its aftermath, not just those who are 'tasting', or seeing the
implications of more registrations, churn, etc. I see discussion about
some of the ideas that some parties have, particularly registrars and
registries, but I don't see sufficient questions that will help those
who are being affected by tasting, which includes those identified in
the ALAC's request for an Issues Report,  to be able to respond. 

 

This group needs to take into account that data gathering by a company,
or party who is NOT day to day a registrar or registry is complex and
time consuming. If the effort is to have legitimacy and enable feedback
and participation by a wide and diverse group of 'at large' registrants,
and a wide group of affected companies whose names are being  tasted,
then the questions need some rethinking, as does the time frame.  I had
understood that the ad hoc group was to develop the 'more data needed'.
It seems to be focused on 'support for solutions' outside of a PDP.
Perhaps I misunderstand. I am merely reading the list of comments. I
have just recently been added as an observer to the group. 

 

The group can easily get focused on the original need for 'more data'.
I looked at Bruce Tonkin's post and commend it to the group for their
consideration. 

 

As to dealing with those who have mistyped, however few they may be in
this environment, it is feasible to develop a refund process, and not
use that as a rationale or excuse to avoid closing the loophole. But
that too, is about solutions. To address this issue, first, data is
needed: what percent of registrations involve 'mistyping' and requests
for refunds associated with mistyped name registrations" That is a
suitable question for the questionnaire. 

 

 

Overall, the questionnaire is much too focused on asking for feedback
about possible solutions. 

 

That is premature. The ad hoc group should focus on what is indeed
needed--how to get more data.  And what data, and how to make sure that
a broad, diverse set of affected parties can respond. As well as those
who are presently engaged in tasting. Input from all of these different
parties is needed. As well as data from registries and registrars. I
have recently seen some of the latter. And applaud it. 

 

 

Bruce identified the three relevant problems. The ad hoc group, although
it is limited in number and limited in time, should take up his
suggestions quite seriously.

 

They clearly define where more 'statistics' and more data are needed.
...

 

The Ad Hoc group should avoid taking input at this stage on possible
solutions.  One must first define the problem(s) thoroughly, document
the data, and then move into consideration of solutions. And the
consideration of solutions is a Council task. Hopefully after a full
PDP. 

 

Regards

 

Marilyn Cade