January 2018 - Gnso-rpm-data

Recordings, attendance & AC chat from Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) Sub Team for Data call on Friday, 26 January 2018
by Michelle DeSmyter Jan. 26, 2018

Jan. 26, 2018

Dear All, Please find the attendance of the call attached to this email. The MP3, Adobe Connect recording and Adobe Connect chat below for the Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) Sub Team for Data call held Friday, 26 January 2018 at 17:00 UTC. Attendance of the call is also posted on the agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/bga8B MP3: https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-rpm-review-26jan18-en.mp3 Adobe Connect recording: https://participate.icann.org/p7dhylbt97r/ The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page:https://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar[gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_grou…> ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-data/ Main wiki page for the working group: https://community.icann.org/x/eI1EB[community.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_…> Thank you. Kind regards, Michelle

1 0

Urgent re Data Google Doc
by Susan Payne Jan. 26, 2018

Jan. 26, 2018

Hi Ariel Do you have a link to the redline of the Data Sub Google Doc. The original link seems to go to a version dated 27 November and I can’t see any of the mark-up Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy | Valideus Ltd E: susan.payne(a)valideus.com<mailto:susan.payne@valideus.com> D: +44 20 7421 8255 T: +44 20 7421 8299 M: +44 7971 661175 From: Gnso-rpm-data [mailto:gnso-rpm-data-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Ariel Liang Sent: 24 January 2018 21:40 To: Kathy Kleiman <kathy(a)kathykleiman.com> Cc: gnso-rpm-data(a)icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-rpm-data] [Ext] Re: Reminder: Google Doc Closes on Tue 23 Jan at 18:00 UTC Hello Kathy, Thanks for the clarification. As per email to the full WG, staff have produced a clean version of the Data Request Table, excluding draft suggested survey questions in Section 4-5 and including the instruction paragraphs. Best Regards, Ariel From: Kathy Kleiman <kathy(a)kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>> Date: Tuesday, January 23, 2018 at 3:57 PM To: Ariel Liang <ariel.liang(a)icann.org<mailto:ariel.liang@icann.org>> Cc: "gnso-rpm-data(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-data@icann.org>" <gnso-rpm-data(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-data@icann.org>> Subject: [Ext] Re: [Gnso-rpm-data] Reminder: Google Doc Closes on Tue 23 Jan at 18:00 UTC Hi Ariel, I think the language below can be read both ways - showing the questions and not showing the questions. But the whole reason for the work over the weekend, with Kurt's text as revised by Rebecca, was to *not* show questions that the subteam has yet to even review :-). Hence, our work for this week! Best regards, Kathy On 1/23/2018 6:11 PM, Ariel Liang wrote: Hello Kathy, Thank you for your comments. In last week’s Sub Team call, when you raised the question whether to release the draft suggested survey questions for Section 4 and 5 (Section 6 does not have any suggested questions yet), Kurt responded that he was comfortable with either hiding them, or releasing them with important caveats. The language (bolded below) in the paragraphs provided by Kurt and commented by Rebecca and you seem to indicate that draft suggested survey questions should still be kept in the clean copy. “…The ICANN volunteer policy team developing registrant survey questions has only created the rough drafts. Answers to these questions will inform the discussion of the Charter questions that you have read. ICANN staff and policy volunteers will continue to hone the survey questions during the vendor selection process and then will work with the selected survey provider to create a set of questions and methodology to economically and effectively elicit the requisite data.” Kurt and others, please be so kind to confirm whether the draft suggested survey questions for Section 4 and 5 should be excluded from the document at this stage. If they should not be excluded, we will convert the clean copy incorporating the edits/comments received to date. Thank you, Ariel From: Gnso-rpm-data <gnso-rpm-data-bounces(a)icann.org><mailto:gnso-rpm-data-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Kathy Kleiman <kathy(a)kathykleiman.com><mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com> Date: Tuesday, January 23, 2018 at 11:05 AM To: "gnso-rpm-data(a)icann.org"<mailto:gnso-rpm-data@icann.org> <gnso-rpm-data(a)icann.org><mailto:gnso-rpm-data@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-rpm-data] Reminder: Google Doc Closes on Tue 23 Jan at 18:00 UTC Hi Ariel, I've checked the document and may be missing something. I thought the goal was to replace Questions 4, 5 and 6 (since the subteam has not yet discussed them) with the paragraphs that Kurt and Rebecca have drafted/edited. Is that your plan as well? I ask because I note the un-reviewed details and columns of questions of 4, 5 and 6 remain in the current document... Best and tx, Kathy On 1/22/2018 7:40 PM, Ariel Liang wrote: Hello everyone, This is a friendly reminder that staff will close “commenting/suggesting” on the Data Request Google doc[docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_docume…> by 18:00 UTC on Tuesday, 23 January. After the document is closed, staff will convert a clean version as is, circulate the clean document on the full WG mailing list, and incorporate it in the RFP document, noting the draft status of the document. Thanks for the Registrant / Potential Registrant paragraphs drafted by Kurt and commented by Rebecca and Kathy. If anyone has further comments on the paragraphs, please provide your input ASAP. Thank you! Mary, Julie, Berry, and Ariel _______________________________________________ Gnso-rpm-data mailing list Gnso-rpm-data(a)icann.org<mailto:Gnso-rpm-data@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-data

4 4

Action Items from 26 January 2018 RPM Data Sub Team Call
by Julie Hedlund Jan. 26, 2018

Jan. 26, 2018

All, Below are the action items and notes staff captured from the RPM Data Sub Team meeting today (26 January 2018). The notes from the call are posted to the Sub Team wiki space, together with the call recording, transcript and Adobe Connect chat and attendance records. Note also that the next call will be on Friday, 02 February at 1700 UTC. Best Regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Action Items: Section 2, Survey of Registrars: Staff will update the Google document based on the discussion on the call on 26 January. Section 3, Survey of TM and Brand Owners: Sub Team members should review and comment on the list concerning the final anecdotal and data questions for the question “What is the evidence of harm under the existing [exact match] system?”, page 22-23 at https://docs.google.com/document/d/1EUXC03ccuYhRMa_X4hDCPrq88KkF6qBRkL6sCcN…. Notes: 1. Section 2, Registrars, Page 14, https://docs.google.com/document/d/1EUXC03ccuYhRMa_X4hDCPrq88KkF6qBRkL6sCcN… Anecdotal Questions: If you offer(ed) pre-order for new gTLD domain names before the launch of GA, when was the Claims Notice submitted to the customer? -- Move to data questions. What, if any, challenges do you encounter when sending Claims Notices in respect of pre-order names. Were there any particular TLDs or types of TLDs where the operation of the Claims was technically or operationally difficult, or where Claims was otherwise problematic or unnecessary? Please explain. -- Variation: "What aspects of the Claims RPMs conflicted with your domain names sales/operations?" and/or "Is the way the claims period described in the RPM too prescriptive?" -- Edit to first bullet, "in respect of pre-order names or other operations?" Given the registration process that you operate, would it be feasible for you, to run surveys... -- Add “and/or your resellers” after “would it be feasible for you,” -- Would it be useful to gather data about the location of the Registrar? The language of the registration agreement might or might not correlate to the location of the registrar. May be useful???

1 0

Reminder: Google Doc Closes on Tue 23 Jan at 18:00 UTC
by Ariel Liang Jan. 24, 2018

Jan. 24, 2018

Hello everyone, This is a friendly reminder that staff will close “commenting/suggesting” on the Data Request Google doc<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1EUXC03ccuYhRMa_X4hDCPrq88KkF6qBRkL6sCcN…> by the 18:00 UTC on Tuesday, 23 January. After the document is closed, staff will convert a clean version as is, circulate the clean document on the full WG mailing list, and incorporate it in the RFP document, noting the draft status of the document. Thanks for the Registrant / Potential Registrant paragraphs drafted by Kurt and commented by Rebecca and Kathy. If anyone has further comments on the paragraph, please provide your input on the ASAP. Thank you! Mary, Julie, Berry, and Ariel

2 4

Registrant Questions Paragraphs for RFP
by Kurt Pritz Jan. 21, 2018

Jan. 21, 2018

Hi Mary, Julie, et.al.: Below are a couple paragraphs that might be included in the RFP for a survey provider. The “Our Guidance” paragraphs are optional but I think it is a good opportunity to steer the proposals in the right direction. Here you go: Regarding the Survey to Registrants and Potential Registrants The surveys of registrants has the twin risks of: Being the most expensive part of the work, and Returning little or no value if not done properly Therefore the bidders proposal must address: The survey contents, i.e., questions that: : registrants are willing to answer and When answered, will provide meaningful information The survey methodology, the manner of economically reaching registrants in sufficient numbers to provide statistically meaningful results. (Less than 1% of the world’s population has registered a domain name.) The ICANN volunteer policy team developing registrant survey questions has only created the rough drafts. These questions, when answered by registrant in significant numbers, will inform the discussion of the Charter questions that you have read. ICANN staff and policy volunteers will continue to hone the survey questions during the vendor selection process and then will work with the selected survey provider to create a set of questions and methodology to economically and effectively elicit the requisite data. Our guidance on this is: To increase the likelihood that registrants respond and to control costs: The survey should be relatively short Most or all of the questions should be multiple choice Open ended questions (if any) should be at the end Requests for personal information should be avoided To reach a requisite number of respondents, the survey provider might: Use access to large survey panels Using domain industry contacts, develop incentives, and work with registrars to directly reach out to their customers

3 2

Recordings, attendance & AC chat from Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) Sub Team for Data call on Friday, 19 January 2018
by Michelle DeSmyter Jan. 21, 2018

Jan. 21, 2018

Dear All, Please find the attendance of the call attached to this email. The MP3, Adobe Connect recording and Adobe Connect chat below for the Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) Sub Team for Data call held Friday, 19 January 2018 at 17:00 UTC. Attendance of the call is also posted on the agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/5gO8B MP3: https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-rpm-review-19jan18-en.mp3 Adobe Connect recording: https://participate.icann.org/p2j3kwc14gd/ The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page:https://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar[gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_grou…> ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-data/ Main wiki page for the working group: https://community.icann.org/x/eI1EB[community.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_…> Thank you. Kind regards, Michelle

2 1

Action Items from 19 January 2018 RPM Data Sub Team Call
by Julie Hedlund Jan. 19, 2018

Jan. 19, 2018

All, Below are the action items and notes staff captured from the RPM Data Sub Team meeting today (19 January 2018). The notes from the call are posted to the Sub Team wiki space, together with the call recording, transcript and Adobe Connect chat and attendance records. Note also that the next call will be on Friday, 26 January at 1700 UTC. Best Regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Action Items: Section 2, Survey of Registrars: Staff will update the Google document based on the discussion on the call on 19 January. Section 3, Survey of TM and Brand Owners: Sub Team members should review and comment on the list concerning the final anecdotal and data questions for the question “What is the evidence of harm under the existing [exact match] system?”, page 22-23 at https://docs.google.com/document/d/1EUXC03ccuYhRMa_X4hDCPrq88KkF6qBRkL6sCcN…. Sections 4, 5, & 6: These sections have yet to be discussed, but Kurt will provide by 1800 UTC (1000 PST) Monday, 22 January, suggested brief paragraphs for purposes of publication in the draft document to go out with the RFP. Survey Question Table for RFP: Sub Team members will complete a review of the draft table by 1800 UTC (1000 PST) Tuesday, 23 January and staff will compile as a clean PDF for the RFP. Notes: 1. Section 2, Registrars, Page 9, https://docs.google.com/document/d/1EUXC03ccuYhRMa_X4hDCPrq88KkF6qBRkL6sCcN… In the relevant data question: Change to: "...should the Registry release it -- what Registry..." should be "Registrar". Question 4: Column three, anecdotal questions: "Have you had feedback from your customers with registry reserved names -- positive or negative? -- Addition: “Examples: Brand owners that couldn't get their brand due to reserved names list OR registrants that didn't get a name they wanted because the names was "protectively reserved" for a brand.” When name collision names were released from reservation, trademark owners with a mark in the TMCH were given a right of first refusal. What was your experience of this? -- Change to "Do you have any experience of this, if so, what went well? Were there any technical or other issues?" When name collision names were released from reservation, trademark owners with a mark in the TMCH were given a right of first refusal. What was your experience of this, what went well? Were there any technical or other issues? -- Combine with the following question and reduce to one question. If registry reserved names were to be offered first to trademark owners with a mark in the TMCH, what would be the best way to do this from your perspective as a registrar? A second Sunrise? A right of first refusal? What of any concerns would this raise for you as a registrar? -- Addition: “What if any technical issues need to be taken into account?” -- Rewrite: "One of the questions we’ve been asked to address is should registry reserved names be offered first to trademark owners with a mark in the TMCH and what would be the best way to do this?" Discussion: -- Make sure that the focus is the impact on brands. How do we get to the reason that the name was a problem because it was someone's brand. -- Wondering if this is how data is kept? Is the domain provider going to know that this was a brand issue? Looking for situations where brand owner couldn't get their name since it was on the reserved list or registrants couldn't get it because it was a brand. -- Add: "What would be the consequences to you if the registry were to release the reserved name?" -- Disagree: want to collect data. Trying to find out what is the problem. Question 5: Column three, anecdotal questions, first question: -- Delete, "From your experience as a registrar..." -- Should probably be split into two questions. -- Add, “Does having two models make it difficult for you?” to try to get at the question of whether there is a third option. -- These questions should come before the questions about reserved names -- so Question 5 before Question 4? If they didn't do the Sunrise they wouldn't be answering these questions. Column four, Data question: -- Add: “Did you encounter a Sunrise longer than 30 or 60 days?” 2. RFP Status and Actions: -- Release early. Include the table in draft form and notice of such would be released to the full WG around January 22nd or so. Release the RFP a week early, the week starting 29 January. -- Document is a sample document that the survey providers can refer to. Doesn't have to be final. -- Inputs by 1800 UTC Tuesday, 23 January. A clean version will be included in the RFP.

1 0

Reminder: Google Doc Update & Lock for Edits in 12 Hours
by Ariel Liang Jan. 19, 2018

Jan. 19, 2018

Dear All, As per action item for staff, we have incorporated comments and input discussed in the last Sub Team meeting on the Google Doc. Please reference the redlines and comments made on page 20-23: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1EUXC03ccuYhRMa_X4hDCPrq88KkF6qBRkL6sCcN…<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_docume…>. As before, staff only incorporate edits (with redlines/track changes) and comments provided by the Sub Team in the sections that the group has already discussed. About 12 hours before the start of the Sub Team call (Fri, 19 Jan at 17:00 UTC), we will make this Google Doc “view only” so no further comments/edits can be added before the call. We will also distribute a PDF document that records the redlines and comments made on the Google Doc for reference. As communicated previously, on Monday 22 January, we will forward the Data Request Table (after incorporating input/comments discussed in tomorrow’s call) to the full WG, ensuring that they are comfortable with releasing this table as part of the RFP. Please be assured that to the extent the document is still in draft form when published in the RFP documents, there will be a clarifying note describing the draft status of the document. Last, please review the proposed draft agenda for tomorrow’s call: 1. Complete discussion on Section 3 (TM/Brand Owners), page 23 et seq 2. Commence discussion on either Section 2 (Registrars) or Section 4 (Registrants) at Sub Team’s option 3. Timing of future meetings 4. AOB Thank you for your time and contributions! Best Regards, Mary, Berry, Julie, and Ariel

2 2

Agenda for Tomorrow
by Susan Payne Jan. 18, 2018

Jan. 18, 2018

Hi all I’d be happy to do the registrar section tomorrow if others would like to – but ideally it would be good to know in advance as it’s now a couple of months since I did this and will need to re-familiarise myself. Susan Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy | Valideus Ltd E: susan.payne(a)valideus.com<mailto:susan.payne@valideus.com> D: +44 20 7421 8255 T: +44 20 7421 8299 M: +44 7971 661175 From: Gnso-rpm-data [mailto:gnso-rpm-data-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Ariel Liang Sent: 18 January 2018 16:32 To: gnso-rpm-data(a)icann.org Subject: [Gnso-rpm-data] Reminder: Google Doc Update & Lock for Edits in 12 Hours Dear All, As per action item for staff, we have incorporated comments and input discussed in the last Sub Team meeting on the Google Doc. Please reference the redlines and comments made on page 20-23: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1EUXC03ccuYhRMa_X4hDCPrq88KkF6qBRkL6sCcN…<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_docume…>. As before, staff only incorporate edits (with redlines/track changes) and comments provided by the Sub Team in the sections that the group has already discussed. About 12 hours before the start of the Sub Team call (Fri, 19 Jan at 17:00 UTC), we will make this Google Doc “view only” so no further comments/edits can be added before the call. We will also distribute a PDF document that records the redlines and comments made on the Google Doc for reference. As communicated previously, on Monday 22 January, we will forward the Data Request Table (after incorporating input/comments discussed in tomorrow’s call) to the full WG, ensuring that they are comfortable with releasing this table as part of the RFP. Please be assured that to the extent the document is still in draft form when published in the RFP documents, there will be a clarifying note describing the draft status of the document. Last, please review the proposed draft agenda for tomorrow’s call: 1. Complete discussion on Section 3 (TM/Brand Owners), page 23 et seq 2. Commence discussion on either Section 2 (Registrars) or Section 4 (Registrants) at Sub Team’s option 3. Timing of future meetings 4. AOB Thank you for your time and contributions! Best Regards, Mary, Berry, Julie, and Ariel

2 1

Recordings, attendance & AC Chat from eview of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) Sub Team for Data call on Thursday, 11 January 2018 22:00 UTC
by Michelle DeSmyter Jan. 12, 2018

Jan. 12, 2018

Dear All, Please find the attendance of the call attached to this email. The MP3, Adobe Connect recording and Adobe Connect chat below for the Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) Sub Team for Data call held Thursday, 11 January 2018 at 22:00 UTC. Attendance of the call is also posted on the agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/YSByB[community.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_…> MP3: https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-rpm-review-11jan18-en.mp3 Adobe Connect recording: https://participate.icann.org/p44iunl8uqa/ The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page:https://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar[gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_grou…> ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-data/ Main wiki page for the working group: https://community.icann.org/x/eI1EB[community.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_…> Thank you. Kind regards, Michelle

1 0