Hi All It strikes me that developing the right metrics is of fundamental importance but challenging for this exercise. Theo's comment about different registrar business models illustrates the complexity when requesting data from registrars. Requesting data from the other data sources may not be straightforward either. For example: 1) Acquire total amount of transfers before and after policy implementation 2) Acquire transfer complaints submitted to ICANN before and after policy implementation In relation to 1), I am not sure how total amount of transfers before and after policy implementation could be used to "determine if the IRTP-B thru IRTP-D Consensus Policies enhanced and/or improved the transfer process". Let's say there were 4 million before and 4.2 million after, what does this mean? To me, the number should be proportional but even so, it is unlikely to be indicative, let alone "conclusive". However, if we only look at the issue of "registrar lock" (ClientTransferProhibited status), the data on "transfer-losing-nacked" from the monthly reports and trending may be useful. In relation to 2), below are the numbers taken from ICANN Compliance annual reports: Year Number of Transfer Complaints 2012 6799 2013 4962 2014 6477 But these numbers do not tell the whole story. According to Compliance's slide presentation to registrars during ICANN 52, just over 50% of those complaints are "valid". I hope these examples demonstrate the need to be clearer about the linkage between the issue and the data/metric requested. To this end, I think it would be helpful to develop a table with the following headers, at the very least: 1. the issue, 2. the policy change, 3. implementation date, 4. the data or metrics required to evaluate the effectiveness of the policy change, 5. the data source(s) My thinking or hope is that once we are clear about 1 and 2, it will be easier to develop and fine-tune 4 and 5 will become obvious. Thoughts? Pam -----Original Message----- From: gnso-dmpm-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-dmpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Berry Cobb Sent: Sunday, March 01, 2015 3:11 PM To: 'gtheo'; 'Steve Chan' Cc: gnso-dmpm-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-dmpm-wg] - Data Request IRTP Use Case Hi Theo, Thank you for the input. I might ask that you provide your input into to the RFI document that was sent. Comments in the doc will suffice. I'm not sure if you read the transcript or the MP3 from our last call, but if the group chooses to advance this RFI, one the WG polishes the document further, our next step is to send this over to the IRTP-D mailing list for input prior to us sending it out to the broader GNSO for their input. If you will recall, this is only a "Use Case" and not an actual request although someday it could become real. The closer we can make it real, the better off we will be. As also mentioned on the call, this use case will likely not be instrumental to the groups possible recommendations, but it could perhaps uncover a few things we might have missed. Again thanks for the feedback. B Berry Cobb Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) 720.839.5735 mail@berrycobb.com @berrycobb -----Original Message----- From: gnso-dmpm-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-dmpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of gtheo Sent: Friday, February 27, 2015 06:40 To: Steve Chan Cc: gnso-dmpm-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-dmpm-wg] - Data Request IRTP Use Case Thank you Steve and group for this use case. Few quick comments. I have the feeling that the RFI assumes that Registrars have a transfer process in place that is identical for every Registrar. The request itself at the Registry level is identical, the procedure however before the transfer is requested at the Registry level is different for Registrars and can fail at many levels depending on the procedure being used. The RFI does not make a difference between Registrar business models. The numbers when it comes to support will vary wildly with Registrars who only deal with resellers compared to Registrars who deal with end users/registrants. Best regards, Theo Geurts Realtime Register B.V. Ceintuurbaan 32A 8024 AA - ZWOLLE - The Netherlands T: +31.384530759 F: +31.384524734 U: www.realtimeregister.com E: support@realtimeregister.com Steve Chan schreef op 2015-02-26 02:14:

Dear WG Members,

Per the working group call held on Tuesday 24 February 2015, staff is re-circulating the IRTP use case/executive summary document for the group to consider whether it would like to pursue this effort. If there is interest in circulating this use case to interested parties (e.g., to registrars, registries, IRTP Part D WG, etc.), staff feels that it is critical that the WG review and refine the use case. As was discussed on the call, while the use case may not be critical to developing the recommendations, it does provide some benefits, chief amongst those is providing real world testing and refinement of the data request template. Please discuss on list the direction the group would like to take for the use case exercise.

Best,

STEVEN CHAN Sr. Policy Manager

ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300

Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 steve.chan@icann.org

direct: +1.310.301.3886 mobile: +1.310.339.4410

tel: +1.310.301.5800

fax: +1.310.823.8649 _______________________________________________ Gnso-dmpm-wg mailing list Gnso-dmpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-dmpm-wg

_______________________________________________ Gnso-dmpm-wg mailing list Gnso-dmpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-dmpm-wg _______________________________________________ Gnso-dmpm-wg mailing list Gnso-dmpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-dmpm-wg