February 2018 - Gnso-rpm-data

Recordings, attendance & AC chat for Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) Sub Team for Data call on Friday, 16 February 2018
by Michelle DeSmyter Feb. 16, 2018

Feb. 16, 2018

Dear All, Please find the attendance and AC Chat of the call attached to this email, and the MP3 and Adobe Connect recording below for the Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) Sub Team for Data call held Friday, 16 February 2018 at 17:00 UTC. Attendance of the call is also posted on the agenda wiki page:https://community.icann.org/x/ChO8B MP3: https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-rpm-review-16feb18-en.mp3 Adobe Connect recording: https://participate.icann.org/p3grvcpu24b/ 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

Google Doc Closes in 8 Hours & Suggested Agenda
by Ariel Liang Feb. 16, 2018

Feb. 16, 2018

Hello everyone, Kindly note that Rebecca has revised the suggested questions for Section 5 (Potential Registrant, page 33-36) with redlines, as well as some suggested questions for Section 4 (page 27), incorporating comments/input from the Sub Team: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1EUXC03ccuYhRMa_X4hDCPrq88KkF6qBRkL6sCcN… (thank you, Rebecca!). We will close “commenting/suggesting” on the Data Request Google doc at around 05:00 UTC on Friday, 16 February. We will also distribute a PDF document that records the redlines and comments made on the Google Doc for reference. Regarding tomorrow’s meeting, Staff would like to suggest that we continue the discussion of Section 4 (Registrants) led by Kurt. Kurt, kindly let us know whether this would work for you (hope your visit in Australia is going well!): 1. Continue discussion of Section 4 (Registrants) (page 28 et seq) 2. Timing of future meetings & ICANN61 3. AOB As communicated previously, Staff will provide responding vendors (eight so far) with the updated Data Table no later than Monday, 26 February. This means that the Data Team will need to complete the deliberation on the Data Table by Friday, 23 February, at the very latest (two more meetings, including tomorrow’s). By 23:59 UTC on Friday, 23 February, we will close the Google doc and produce a clean version, incorporating input and comment as is, then circulate it with the full WG and forward it to the Procurement Team. In the meantime, Sub Team members are encouraged to review and comment on the existing suggested survey questions, as well as section 6 that does not yet contain suggested survey questions. Please don’t hesitate to jump in if you have any input to fill the gap. Furthermore, one more task for the Sub Team is to examine potential data needs in relation to preliminary agreed questions for examining Additional Marketplace RPMs currently being offered on a voluntary basis by some registry operators. The Sub Team would need to determine on the timing to commence the discussion. Some the options are: a. start on Friday, 2 March (last Sub Team meeting before ICANN61), b. during ICANN61 and take a break beforehand, c. after ICANN61. If the Sub Team would like to meet in ICANN61, then the format and logistics also need to be discussed (e.g., use one of the four RPMs sessions? meet as a small group in a pop-up room?). This can be discussed in agenda no.2 tomorrow. Thank you for your time and contributions! Best Regards, Mary, Julie, Berry, and Ariel

1 1

UPDATED Recordings, attendance & AC chat Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) Sub Team for Data call on Friday, 09 February 2018
by Michelle DeSmyter Feb. 10, 2018

Feb. 10, 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, 09 February 2018 at 17:00 UTC. MP3: https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-rpm-review-09feb18-en.mp3[audio.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__audio.icann.org_gnso_g…> Adobe Connect recording: https://participate.icann.org/p9c1dyjp5c5/ 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/ Wiki agenda page: https://community.icann.org/x/Nw68B[community.icann.org] Thank you. Kind regards, Michelle

1 0

Recordings, attendance & AC chat Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) Sub Team for Data call on Friday, 09 February 2018
by Michelle DeSmyter Feb. 9, 2018

Feb. 9, 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, 09 February 2018 at 17:00 UTC. Attendance of the call is also posted on the agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/Nw68B MP3: https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-rpm-review-09feb18-en.mp3 Adobe Connect recording: https://participate.icann.org/p9c1dyjp5c5/ 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

Action Items from 09 February 2018 RPM Data Sub Team Call
by Julie Hedlund Feb. 9, 2018

Feb. 9, 2018

All, Below are the action items and notes staff captured from the RPM Data Sub Team meeting today (09 February 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, 16 February at 1700 UTC. Best Regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Action Items: Section 5, Survey of Potential Registrants: Rebecca will revise the Google document based on the discussion on the call on 09 February and the notes (below). 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. Notes: 1. Section 5, Survey of Potential Registrants – see: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1EUXC03ccuYhRMa_X4hDCPrq88KkF6qBRkL6sCcN…. -- We should make sure that everyone who is in a category should be asked the same questions. -- Make sure we are sending people down the right path. How the question should be ask should be asked should be for the survey provider to weigh in on. If someone received an objection then we ask them what they did -- this is the key question. Important to get as much information as we can, with tick-box options. Did they think it wasn't worth the time, were they unsure of their legal rights? -- Overarching question: How are we going to find registrants generally who registered, or those who got a notice? How to identify that subset? -- Two ways: Try and see if someone in the registry/registrar space would be willing to send out a survey -- category 2 (tried but weren't able with respect to at least one TLD); for category 3 -- there are significant survey panels for people doing internet things -- ask Survey Monkey to implement the survey or other large internet survey panel. -- Does Survey Monkey rely on self-qualification of respondents? Important to recognize in category 3 we are talking about potential consumers -- ask them, is this the type of thing you would buy? -- In the RFP we also specified that the vendor should propose outreach strategy for reaching target audience, especially registrants / potential registrants who are not necessarily involved in ICANN community. Show notice: [Explain in your own words what you understand the notice to mean] [Ask more comprehension questions: you may or may not have rights…] -- Ask them to explain in their own words, but the survey provider might think that is too much. We want the least guided response. -- Showing the notice and getting feedback -- only suggestion is to switch the bracketed suggestions for the provider. We want to ask comprehension questions. Ideally we want them to say it in their own words, but worried we might not get the responses we need, prefer have tick boxes. Given the guidance first and then the suggestion for how after. What would you do if you received a notice with the following wording: continue with the registration not continue with the registration consult someone else [who] something else [explain] [Consider some cells using examples: e.g., xerox.careers, apple.farms, chipotles.sucks—what would they do if they received notices?] -- Engaging in hypotheticals can have value, but could be a slippery slope. But, we are kind of asking people about the notice in a vacuum -- we don't know what they are trying to register. -- chipotles.sucks -- could register as a criticism site; could work up some scenarios -- the untility of asking specifics is to have respondents apply the notice to a specific example. -- xerox.careers for example -- hypothetically someone might be in the recruitment business or as a way to scam people -- not sure how we address that. -- Nervous about the potential to misread the hypothetical data. -- Danger that the respondent may not know the brand. -- Whether a brand cares about being used in the survey it doesn't matter for our data gathering; but should use global well-known brands as examples. -- Or, perhaps we could set out a "fake" company - saying it could be a competitor of major brand X? -- Need to try and decide WHAT we are trying to solve for here. -- Are there other ways to get at the same information without using hypotheticals? -- We don't know whether the notice can differentiate between false positive and true positives. We have zero empirical evidence. Could also make up a famous brand. -- Good faith/bad faith is not as much a dichotomy as a spectrum. Suggest that ask if people being part of a focus group -- if you are interested please offramp here. But then funding becomes an issue. -- The notice is one thing. Do you understand the notice? What is this notice say to you? etc...All of these questions about comprehension can be answered without any hypo. The hypos require a lot of nuance that I think the average citizen is unaware of. -- Concerned with hypotheticals is because they could be quite nuanced. You could ask objective questions about the notice without the hypothetical. -- Don't think our mandate is limited to whether the notice is terrifying people or not, but also can we improve it. Need to know more about what it is doing. -- One way to get at without the hypo: After reading this notice, would you think about what you intended to do with the domain name before you decided if you wanted to proceed? That goes to: what is the potential registrant thinking about rather than us guessing about what they're thinking about by looking at the the names they selected as "ok to proceed" in hypothetical. -- Multiple questions are to avoid non-leading questions, that there are several different ways to ask the question, but we should ask the survey provider. If you have registered a domain name, have you received any other kind of objection to your choice of a domain name? If yes, what was it? URS, UDRP, letter from a lawyer, lawsuit, don’t know/not sure, something else [fill in w/ survey expert consultation] Did you keep the domain name after the objection? [Yes/no/explain] Have you received such a notice on more than one occasion? -- Move that up front, but for those people who have registered -- categories 2 and 3. Precedes I am going to show you the claims notice, then go to the claims notice. -- There are overlapping budgets so we should consider the questions as potentially overlapping. 2. RFP Status: --- Responses from 6 vendors. -- 12 February is the deadline for vendors to express interest. -- That will be followed by a period during which the vendors can ask questions. -- The RFP will close on 09 March. See the timeline: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/rfps-en

1 0

Google Doc Closes in 12 Hours & Suggested Agenda
by Ariel Liang Feb. 9, 2018

Feb. 9, 2018

Hello everyone, Staff 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 26-28: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1EUXC03ccuYhRMa_X4hDCPrq88KkF6qBRkL6sCcN…<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_docume…>. We will close “commenting/suggesting” on the Data Request Google doc at around 05:00 UTC on Friday, 09 February. We will also distribute a PDF document that records the redlines and comments made on the Google Doc for reference. Since Kurt won’t make it to the Friday Sub Team call, as he suggested, perhaps we could commence discussion on Section 5 (Potential Registrant), which is led by Rebecca? Rebecca, kindly let us know whether this would work for you. 1. Commence discussion on Section 5 (Potential Registrants) 2. Timing of future meetings 3. AOB As mentioned in the previous meeting, to meet the RFP timeline of sharing the updated Data Table with participating vendors, it would be ideal if the Sub Team could finalize or be close to finalize this table by 19 February (two more Sub Team meetings, including tomorrow’s meeting). Thank you! Mary, Julie, Berry, and Ariel

2 2

Reminder: Google Doc Closes in 12 Hours
by Ariel Liang Feb. 8, 2018

Feb. 8, 2018

Hello everyone, 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 14-15: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1EUXC03ccuYhRMa_X4hDCPrq88KkF6qBRkL6sCcN…. 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. As a friendly reminder, staff will close “commenting/suggesting” on the Data Request Google doc at around 05:00 UTC on Friday, 02 February. We will also distribute a PDF document that records the redlines and comments made on the Google Doc for reference. Last, please review the proposed draft agenda for tomorrow’s call: 1. Commence discussion on Section 4 (Registrants) 2. Timing of future meetings 3. AOB Thank you! Mary, Julie, Berry, and Ariel

7 7

Action Items from 02 February 2018 RPM Data Sub Team Call
by Julie Hedlund Feb. 2, 2018

Feb. 2, 2018

All, Below are the action items and notes staff captured from the RPM Data Sub Team meeting today (02 February 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, 09 February at 1700 UTC. Best Regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Action Items: Section 4, Survey of Registrants: Staff will update the Google document based on the discussion on the call on 02 February. 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. Update on the RFP -- Goal is to complete the table by 19 February (staff recommendation). 2. Commence discussion on Section 4 (Registrants): Google Doc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1EUXC03ccuYhRMa_X4hDCPrq88KkF6qBRkL6sCcN… General Points (Add to “General Recommendations” section of the table: -- We are surveying registrants: experience with conducting surveys when surveying this type of audience we should keep the survey short and keep away from open-ended questions and try to use multiple choice questions. Decide whether to come up with the questions ourselves, or let the provider do it? Less sophisticated audience. Discussion might also inform the selection of the survey provider. -- Consider how we get our registrants -- one is engage the survey company; an alternative would be to survey Registrars' customers, though that might be tricky. Might to talk about the direction we want to give to the survey provider on how to reach registrants. -- Trying to keep costs down and a cost driver is open-ended questions since someone has to categorize them. Questions: Have you ever registered a domain name, if the answer is "no" then terminate the survey -- Deleted because a number of people have tried to register but couldn't (not a potential registrant). -- Could include: "Have you registered? If not, why?" If to the population in general they might ask "what is a domain name?" We want to get into to it for why they haven't registered, but we aren't at the point of a domain name survey. -- Or, does this fit into the potential registrant section, but don't want to count people twice. Maybe if you answer "yes" you keep going, if "no" then you go to the survey of potential registrants. -- Could put it in a note to the survey provider: those who have registered, those who have tried but failed for whatever reason, and those who are interested but haven't tried. Have you received any kind of objection to your choice of a domain name? If so what type? -- Will garner information we won't need and is likely to turn off the respondent. -- Leave a lot of leeway to the survey provider. -- Somehow signal that the best way to ascertain whether they received an official trademark claims notice is to have it direct to a standard notice and ask if that is what they received. Point to "Official Trademark Claims Notice". -- Scan down in the questions and note that we ask "if you received a notice that said..." Then add, "Yes, no, or not sure". or: "Which of the following did you receive: a) Trademark Claims Notice from Registrar, b) cease and desist letter from another party, c) other type of objection (if so, Explain ____)"? Cover the possibilities in the multiple choice questions. Ask the survey provider how we best funnel people. -- If we ask something really open-ended that could capture all kinds of steps in the process, such as a cease-and-desist letter. In this question that is what we are trying to elicit -- did you get a claims notice even if you didn't know what it was. Don't want to get people who got cease-and-desist letters. -- Undecided if we need to ask this question, and ask the survey provider which they think is the best approach. When you registered names in any of the new top-level domains, did you receive a notice that stated... -- Then if "no" terminate the survey? If yes, then go to the comprehensive questions. Or if no, continue to get hypothetical information -- if they got a notice, would they understand it. If you receive a notice that looked like this, what would you do about it. If you abandoned you registration why did you -- skip ahead to other questions. These people that have registered, they have or haven't abandoned, two paths: haven't received a claims notice but we want to ask how they would react if the receive on, 2) abandonment that don't apply to trademark claims but apply to other parts of the survey. Once we have someone in the survey we want data about claims notice but behaviors that might apply to other transactions. Capture all the experience -- word it broadly enough to get a good collective experience. -- Gateway Question #1: Have you applied to register a New gTLD Domain Name? If No: Go to Potential Registrants no Application Qs -- If Yes: Go to Gateway Question #2: Have you registered a New gTLD Domain Name? If No: Go to Potential Registrants but No Registration Qs -- If Yes: Go to Registrants Qs. -- Charter questions ask about Trademark Claims, but also general abandonment. When we have a registrant and we ask them if they registered, we also ask if they have registrations that you weren't granted take them through the potential registrant questions. -- Flow from Section 4 into Section 5. -- This part of the survey is where you succeeded, and this part is about where you didn't. -- Suggestion: Do continue with these questions as they are still valid, make sure the questions are clear. Let the survey provider decide where we off ramp or on ramp -- or not "off ramp" but being directed to Qus that apply. These next questions should be asked of people who said they did receive an objection... -- Very open ended -- first try to capture information in multiple-choice questions and then proceed to open-ended questions. -- Or, start open-ended and avoid leading people to answer in a certain way. Given them a chance to say what they would in their own words and then given them multiple choice. Include -- "did you proceed or not" as an off ramp. -- Or, have multiple choice with "other" included. Also, with open-ended it might be hard to categorize the responses. -- Or, provide "other" with explanation, but also specific multiple choice so that metrics can be obtained. -- Give them a chance to say what actually happened.

1 0

Recordings, attendance & AC chat from Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) Sub Team for Data call Friday, 02 February 2018
by Julie Bisland Feb. 2, 2018

Feb. 2, 2018

Dear All, Please find the attendance and AC Chat of the call attached to this email, and the MP3 and Adobe Connect recording below for the Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) Sub Team for Data call held Friday, 02 February 2018 at 17:00 UTC. Attendance of the call is also posted on the agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/iQm8B MP3: https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-rpm-review-02feb18-en.mp3 Adobe Connect recording: https://participate.icann.org/p7e7he5nz1r/<https://participate.icann.org/p7e7he5nz1r/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=d1dce525fc2ff5e0…> The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: https://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar ** 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 Thank you. Kind regards, Julie

1 0