June 2018 - Gnso-rpm-data - lists.icann.org

Actions & Notes: RPM Data Sub Team 20 June 2018
by Ariel Liang June 21, 2018

June 21, 2018

Dear All, Please see below the action items and notes captured by staff from the Data Sub Team call held on 20 June 2018 (17:30 UTC). Staff have posted to the wiki space the action items and notes. Please note that these will be high-level notes and are not meant as a substitute for the transcript or recording. The recording, AC chat, and attendance records are posted on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/x/aoMpBQ Best Regards, Ariel Ariel Xinyue Liang Policy Analyst | Washington, DC Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) ACTION ITEM * AG to touch base with Research Now SSI and see how the cost would be impacted if the survey is expanded beyond NA region but still conducted in English. * AG to revise the questions and send to the point persons/Sub Team to review during ICANN62 and the first week of July. * Staff to discuss with AG about the distribution channels of the other surveys and start the discussion via the Sub Team mailing list. NOTES Discussions about Survey Outreach * Lori expressed concerns about the ways to identify registrants/potential registrants. * Based on Prof. Tushnet’s understanding, we are not only targeting people who attempted to register new gTLD domain names and received Claims Notice before. The target respondents are the people who are interested in registering a new gTLD domain name or tried to register new gTLDs in the past. Make sure AG is reaching the correct target group using validation checks, and not just the Sub Set Lori raised. * For registrant/potential registrant surveys, the initial screening question is that “Have you registered new gTLD domain names?”. AG can include additional screening questions to find out whether the respondents are the registrant population that the Sub Team is interested in reaching. AG can ask what type of gTLDs have they registered? * AG is planning to distribute the survey among the North American panel of the Research Now SSI, who are English speaking. * If the Sub Team need more demographic information, additional questions can be included, so the results can be cut based on different types of demographics. * More difficult way to reach the target respondents would be working with registrars and ask them to distribute the surveys to people who attempted to register new gTLD domains and received claims notice. * Sub Team would love if the registries/registrars are willing to send out the surveys to the registrants/potential registrants. Should pursue that avenue. * Statistically speaking, you will get a tiny number of people that qualify with regard to having registered new gTLD domains and receiving Claims Notice. * Perhaps people in North America aren't easily intimidated, but people from other regions are. * Survey cannot be limited to North America to be as comprehensive as we need to be. If we can't do the job correctly, then I have some fears about how this will be accepted by the community. Sub Team/Co-Chairs would face the criticisms from the community, as the survey results would not be representative. We need to provide additional rationale beyond the "cost" factor. * To expand the survey distribution to other geographic regions and use different languages would add cost significantly. Research NOW SSI do not have a lot of concerns with the lack of responses. But cost would increase due to the development of survey questions in other languages, the coding of surveys, and the review of responses in other languages. * Section 5 (Survey of Potential Respondents) Relevant Charter Q 3 addresses translations....how did this get missed? There's translating the survey, and there's the question as to whether useful data can be obtained regarding translations of the Claims Notice (the latter being the Charter question). * We know that specific Charter questions talks about translations of the Claims Notice. This of course does not imply that the survey itself is to be translated. So perhaps the question for AG is whether/how the geographical limitation can be overcome, and how responses concerning a translated Claims Notice may be obtained even via an English-language survey (if possible). The staff understanding is that the surveys will be conducted only in English. Perhaps the Sub Team and AG can discuss whether, within that limitation, the geographical coverage can be extended? Bearing the cost issue in mind. Could we do the surveys only in English, but go to other geographic regions beyond NA? * ACTION ITEM: AG to touch base with Research Now SSI and see how the cost would be impacted if the survey is expanded beyond NA region but still conducted in English. * We have not discussed in detail about the distribution channel for other surveys. * ACTION ITEM: Staff to discuss with AG about the distribution channels of the other surveys and start the discussion via the Sub Team mailing list. General Comments: Potential Registrant Survey * It is really a comprehension survey, particularly for the potential respondents. Like the short and sweet format which may likely get more responses. * Same reordering of the registrant survey can be applied to the potential registrant survey. * There is limitation in what we could learn from the data gathered through the current survey questions. * Would AG suggest that we use separate Registrant and Potential Registrant surveys or a single survey that has two tracks based on answers. This could provide another means for ensuring qualification of survey takers. Depending on their answers to the first screening question, they would be directed to the registrant/potential registrant surveys. Q1i * This question is targeting the primary demographic of the survey. Support the grid format. * The question may have missed the point "what the potential registrants think about the claims notice after they are shown the claims notice". The real focus is to understand how important they perceive the claims notice. * This question intends to transform the original open-ended question to a closed question. In the grid, AG lists these potential factors that may go into potential registrants’ decisions for continuing registration. * We do not want to limit the question only Group B and D. Make the question also available to Group C. * For Group B & D -- people who have never registered and saw the Claims Notice for the first time -- we are asking them two questions essentially: 1) Of the 5 factors, which one most influenced their decisions? 2) Why would they decide to abandon after they see the claims notice? Do we want to have follow up questions? We are not opposed to a short survey, but we just want to be sure we're getting it all. * Is this question going to the wrong people? Don't think these people are in the position to make that decision if they have hardly seen any Claims Notice. * If respondents select “would not influence me at all”, “not sure”, “I don't know”, they would not see the follow question, i.e., what are the reasons the Claims Notice would affect them. Only when they select "yes", they would see the follow-up question. * ACTION ITEM: AG to provide respondents the options to explain further even when they select “would not influence me at all”; they should also get a follow up question to explain their reason. * ACTION ITEM: AG to delete "Someone else already having claimed my domain name" in the grid. Q1j * No context for the options. Next Steps * AG to revise the questions, each author of the original survey to serve as the point person to review the revised version, and the entire Sub Team to approve all the revised questions, making sure the Sub Team is in agreement. * ACTION ITEM: AG to revise the questions and send to the point persons/Sub Team to review during ICANN62 and the first week of July. * WG to see the final surveys for information only. * As AG needs some time to code and test the survey after the survey questions are finalized, anticipate to distribute the surveys in mid/late July. * Reporting of the result would be late August. * There are many complaints about scheduling conflicts so it is hard to organize an ad-hoc meeting for the Data Sub Team in Panama.

1 0

Recordings, attendance & AC chat from the Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) Sub Team for Data call on Wednesday, 20 June 2018
by Andrea Glandon June 21, 2018

June 21, 2018

Dear All, Please find the attendance and AC chat of the call attached to this email, and the MP3 and AC recording below for the Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) Sub Team for Data call held Wednesday, 20 June 2018 at 17:30 UTC. Attendance of the call is also posted on the agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/aoMpBQ MP3: https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-rpm-review-data-20jun18-en.mp3<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__audio.icann.org_gnso_g…> AC Recording: https://participate.icann.org/p5ovuhjig87/<https://participate.icann.org/p5ovuhjig87/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=d78a3b860d49eb9d…> 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, Andrea Glandon

1 0

Following My Question from Monday re: Qualification of Registrants for Survey
by Lori Schulman June 21, 2018

June 21, 2018

Dear All, I know that we are approaching today’s meeting and I wanted to reiterate something on the list rather than to absorb more time on the live call. On Monday, I had asked about how Registrants will be vetted for the survey. Stacy from AG explained that there will be “funneling” type questions that will qualify survey takers as “registrants” and they will be funneled to the rest of the questions. I am still not clear on how the questions will be drafted in order to ensure that we are getting survey takers who understand what is being asked based on their direct experience. Does AG have proposed draft questions already? If so, may we see them? Using paid test takers for random, consumer oriented surveys makes sense to me. For example, surveys on taste preferences or product comparisons. However, using that kind of pool for something as technical as our survey still troubles me. This goes back to something that Rebecca had explained regarding making sure that we are getting responses based on actual experiences rather than risking survey takers “ranking” or establishing “preferred” answers. If we want to query the understandability of claims notices then I think whether one has seen them before or not may not matter. However, I do think that if we are targeting users who have made actual decisions based on actual notices then we should only be targeting known purchasers who have received those notices. It seems to me that only the registrars would know for sure and I still have doubts about surveying the general public through a paid survey taking system. Therefore, I think it is appropriate to set some real parameters here. I want to make sure that we have the best pool possible given the technical nature of the survey. And I have further questions: * How does AG group plan to drill down to specific segments that we want? * What will the demographic profile look like? * How will we know that the respondents have actually attempted to purchase and have abandoned names based on a claims notice? * How will data be “sifted” after its collected? For example, we should identify in advance what we are looking for i.e., age, employment, number of domains registered, number of abandoned, etc. I have asked this question twice and I am still stuck on some of the details of the response. Perhaps the analysis group can respond in writing which could clarify what we are doing? Thank. Thank you. Lori S. Schulman Senior Director, Internet Policy International Trademark Association (INTA) +1-202-704-0408, Skype: lsschulman From: Gnso-rpm-data [mailto:gnso-rpm-data-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Julie Hedlund Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2018 4:28 PM To: gnso-rpm-data(a)icann.org Subject: [Gnso-rpm-data] REMINDER: Proposed Agenda and Documents: Meeting 20 June at 1730 UTC Dear Data Sub Team Members, In preparation for Wednesday’s meeting (20 June) at 17:30 UTC for 60 minutes, please see the proposed agenda and Google docs: 1. Review agenda 2. Discussion of the proposed Potential Registrant survey questions and suggested changes by Analysis Group: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1iY4KsWpioC8Sacs-pWurfnKxhOsiQA7YaSo1wux… 3. AOB Please also see attached the RFP appendix that includes the original questions as developed by the Sub Team, which is also uploaded on the agenda wiki page here: https://community.icann.org/x/FysFBQ [community.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_…>. Best Regards, Mary, Julie, Ariel, and Berry ________________________________

2 2

REMINDER: Proposed Agenda and Documents: Meeting 20 June at 1730 UTC
by Julie Hedlund June 20, 2018

June 20, 2018

Dear Data Sub Team Members, In preparation for Wednesday’s meeting (20 June) at 17:30 UTC for 60 minutes, please see the proposed agenda and Google docs: 1. Review agenda 2. Discussion of the proposed Potential Registrant survey questions and suggested changes by Analysis Group: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1iY4KsWpioC8Sacs-pWurfnKxhOsiQA7YaSo1wux… 3. AOB Please also see attached the RFP appendix that includes the original questions as developed by the Sub Team, which is also uploaded on the agenda wiki page here: https://community.icann.org/x/FysFBQ [community.icann.org] Best Regards, Mary, Julie, Ariel, and Berry

1 0

RProposed Agenda and Documents: Meeting 20 June at 1730 UTC
by Julie Hedlund June 19, 2018

June 19, 2018

Dear Data Sub Team Members, In preparation for Wednesday’s meeting (20 June) at 17:30 UTC for 60 minutes, please see the proposed agenda and Google docs: 1. Review agenda 2. Discussion of the proposed Potential Registrant survey questions and suggested changes by Analysis Group: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1iY4KsWpioC8Sacs-pWurfnKxhOsiQA7YaSo1wux… 3. AOB Please also see attached the RFP appendix that includes the original questions as developed by the Sub Team, which is also uploaded on the agenda wiki page here: https://community.icann.org/x/FysFBQ [community.icann.org] Best Regards, Mary, Julie, Ariel, and Berry

1 0

Recordings, attendance & AC chat from the Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) Sub Team for Data call on Monday, 18 June 2018
by Julie Bisland June 19, 2018

June 19, 2018

Dear All, Please find the attendance and AC chat of the call attached to this email, and the MP3 and AC recording below for the Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) Sub Team for Data call held Monday, 18 June 2018 at 16:00 UTC. Attendance of the call is also posted on the agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/aIMpBQ MP3: https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-rpm-review-18jun18-en.mp3 AC Recording: https://participate.icann.org/p7tsywnxxt7/<https://participate.icann.org/p7tsywnxxt7/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=a3029c3a5e9ca4be…> 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 [community.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_…> Thank you. Kind Regards, Julie

1 0

Actions & Notes: RPM Data Sub Team 18 June 2018
by Ariel Liang June 19, 2018

June 19, 2018

Dear All, Please see below the action items and notes captured by staff from the Data Sub Team call held on 18 June 2018 (1600 UTC). Staff have posted to the wiki space the action items and notes. Please note that these will be high-level notes and are not meant as a substitute for the transcript or recording. The recording, AC chat, and attendance records are posted on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/x/aIMpBQ Best Regards, Ariel Ariel Xinyue Liang Policy Analyst | Washington, DC Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) ACTION ITEM * Staff to email the full WG the schedule of upcoming meetings, including Sub Team calls (DONE) NOTES General Comments * AG will collaborate with ICANN staff to distribute the registrant survey among ICANN community groups that may include potential respondents. * There would be a filter question at the beginning, asking the respondents whether they have registered domains in the new gTLD. If not, they will be filtered to complete the potential registrant survey. Hypothetical questions are posted to both actual registrants/potential registrants. * The way that AG broke out the surveys is correct. * Is there a way to protect the responses to earlier questions being “contaminated”? You have a forward track and you cannot go back. Consider setting up the survey in a way that does not allow the respondents to go back and revise their responses to earlier questions? * There is concern about the single use case, as we may not receive representative responses. * Registrant survey targets 50 complete responses, and potential registrant survey targets 200 complete responses. If we get 200 potential registrants, sub group of 50 is acceptable. * The three domain name examples at the very beginning of the registrant survey are not new gTLDs. Any examples we use must be live. Discussions of the Hypothetical Questions (Doc sent by Kristine) * The respondents do not necessarily need to have already seen a Claims Notice. * Rebecca likes the scenarios/examples proposed by Kristine, but is concerned with asking the respondent multiple times for the various scenarios. This may not match the registrant’s actual experience registering a domain name. * The key is to show a Claims Notice and ask respondents to provide responses to specific questions. virtue.food example would be helpful to elicit thoughts from registrants. We cannot have a survey without some imagined domain name. Other than that, supports examples from Kristine. * Is there a threshold question? The current filter of the hypothetical question is that the respondent attempted to register for a new gTLD domain name but did not complete the registration. * Survey takers would be sophisticated enough to understand that people register different domain names for different uses. * We would be showing a Claims Notice specifically for VIRTUE. * From the way the survey is being set up, isn't the idea to describe the sequence/process that a registrant/potential registrant goes through in order to see how they interact with the domain registration process? That seems to staff to be what is typically described as a "use case". * If we give respondents a particular example, there would be a huge effect on the survey responses. We should at least give a couple of examples. * Regarding Kristine’s proposal, the issue is with regard to survey administration. It can be troublesome to present survey takers a whole list of examples/scenarios. Respondents may shape their responses by comparing these different examples/scenarios. The response we get would not be representative. Happy to add a xerox example. We need to do some subgrouping and random rotation, making sure one respondent will get one xerox example and one virtue example. Simulate the survey to what the registrant would be experiencing. * Don't understand why all the examples could not be presented to the respondents at once. * Strongly oppose to using an actual brand, especially a famous mark. * A survey does best when it replicates the actual reality. What is the best way to get people’s thought process via this survey by simulating the scenario that they are registering a domain name in the new gTLDs? * AG agrees with Rebecca's points. AG proposes to include a screening question: if you are going to register a domain name, what would you most likely register the domain name for? Based on respondents’ answers to the screening question, port/funnel them into a grid question. They would see some, but not all of the options in the grid. * Would the virtue.food example be an arbitrary example? * Funneling could work, but concerned whether it would be too limiting. Can we open the registrant survey up to more than 50 respondents? Can we ask this hypothetical question also to the potential registrants? * AG would ask this hypothetical question to both registrant and potential registrants (targeting a total of 250 responses). Can certainly target more than 50 registrants too. * In the scenario of virtue.food, when we present the Claims Notice of virtue, we need to know what the trademark is registered for. The reason for the registrants to proceed or not to proceed depends on what the TM is registered for. * An actual Claims Notice for https://domainnamewire.com/2014/01/30/trademark-claims-notice/. Virtue is registered for "medical equipment". * There is no chance that an English word is not already registered as a TM, but we can use a TM example of limited rights. We will need to fictionalize the Claims Notice for “virtue”, especially the goods/classes/jurisdiction elements. Do not set people up for an actual cybersquatting experience. Example, "virtue" for doors? * Sub Team is coalescing on an agreement to use virtue.food as an example, show a fictionalized Claims Notice for virtue, use a funnel to direct respondents to questions, ask them what they would do with the domain name based on their own experience. Procedural Matters * On Wed, 20 June, first 30 min is a brief meeting for the full WG to get on the same page in preparation for ICANN62; the remaining 60 min (17:30-18:30 UTC) would be used for the Data Sub Team. * Goal is to finish off the surveys by the Wed meeting for AG to revise/finalize the questions.

1 0

Re: [Gnso-rpm-data] [Ext] RE: REMINDER: Proposed Agenda and Documents: Meeting 18 June at 1600 UTC
by Julie Hedlund June 19, 2018

June 19, 2018

Thanks so much Kristine. We’ll get these loaded into the Adobe Connect room. Best, Julie From: "Dorrain, Kristine" <dorraink(a)amazon.com> Date: Monday, June 18, 2018 at 10:18 AM To: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org>, "gnso-rpm-data(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-data(a)icann.org> Subject: [Ext] RE: [Gnso-rpm-data] REMINDER: Proposed Agenda and Documents: Meeting 18 June at 1600 UTC Thanks Julie! All, I’m planning to be on the call since we moved it up (my 5 yo may join me so I’ll adjust my apology to being “mostly” there). In advance of our call, though I admit, not very far in advance, I have put together two straw documents. They’re rough but ready for discussion. Last week I committed to thinking about two things: How we could streamline the sunrise duration questions, which is currently two grids. (not for discussion today, but we’ve been intending to circle back to these eventually) How to reorganize the Claims Notice questions to be situation/use case specific without diving into hypotheticals (I think we’re picking up here today.) [Here, you will notice I removed the reference to virtue.food as I still don’t think it adds anything, but as I said before, I’m not going to die on that hill.] I’m not wedded to these docs but they do reflect my current best suggestion for how to get this information. We will definitely need to review the specific line items and tweak and wordsmith these and of course, we’ll need AG to evaluate the likelihood these will elicit the information we want. Talk to you all soon, Kristine From: Gnso-rpm-data [mailto:gnso-rpm-data-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Julie Hedlund Sent: Monday, June 18, 2018 6:45 AM To: gnso-rpm-data(a)icann.org Subject: [Gnso-rpm-data] REMINDER: Proposed Agenda and Documents: Meeting 18 June at 1600 UTC Dear Data Sub Team Members, In preparation for today’s (Monday) meeting (18 June) at 16:00 UTC for 60 minutes, please see the proposed agenda and Google docs: 1. Review agenda 2. Discussion of the proposed Registrant survey questions and suggested changes by Analysis Group: https://docs.google.com/document/d/18K-zhP541IGCR0bXJpBtdmWdpfQ6BbKhFZaaZsf… [docs.google.com] 3. Discussion of the proposed Potential Registrant survey questions and suggested changes by Analysis Group: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1iY4KsWpioC8Sacs-pWurfnKxhOsiQA7YaSo1wux… [docs.google.com] 4. AOB Please also see attached the RFP appendix that includes the original questions as developed by the Sub Team, which is also uploaded on the agenda wiki page here: https://community.icann.org/x/FysFBQ [community.icann.org] Best Regards, Mary, Julie, Ariel, and Berry

1 0

REMINDER: Proposed Agenda and Documents: Meeting 18 June at 1600 UTC
by Julie Hedlund June 19, 2018

June 19, 2018

Dear Data Sub Team Members, In preparation for today’s (Monday) meeting (18 June) at 16:00 UTC for 60 minutes, please see the proposed agenda and Google docs: 1. Review agenda 2. Discussion of the proposed Registrant survey questions and suggested changes by Analysis Group: https://docs.google.com/document/d/18K-zhP541IGCR0bXJpBtdmWdpfQ6BbKhFZaaZsf… 3. Discussion of the proposed Potential Registrant survey questions and suggested changes by Analysis Group: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1iY4KsWpioC8Sacs-pWurfnKxhOsiQA7YaSo1wux… 4. AOB Please also see attached the RFP appendix that includes the original questions as developed by the Sub Team, which is also uploaded on the agenda wiki page here: https://community.icann.org/x/FysFBQ [community.icann.org] Best Regards, Mary, Julie, Ariel, and Berry

2 1

Re: [Gnso-rpm-data] [Ext] RE: RPM Data Sub Team Meeting Options: Monday, 18 June
by Julie Hedlund June 18, 2018

June 18, 2018

Thanks Kristine! Best, Julie From: "Dorrain, Kristine" <dorraink(a)amazon.com> Date: Friday, June 15, 2018 at 5:31 PM To: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org>, Ariel Liang <ariel.liang(a)icann.org>, "gnso-rpm-data(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-data(a)icann.org> Subject: [Ext] RE: RPM Data Sub Team Meeting Options: Monday, 18 June I can do either option 2 or option 3. From: Gnso-rpm-data [mailto:gnso-rpm-data-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Julie Hedlund Sent: Friday, June 15, 2018 12:03 PM To: Ariel Liang <ariel.liang(a)icann.org>; gnso-rpm-data(a)icann.org Subject: [Gnso-rpm-data] RPM Data Sub Team Meeting Options: Monday, 18 June Importance: High Hello everyone, As we noted on the call and per the notes below, several Sub Team members are not available at the suggested time of 17:00-18:30 UTC on Monday, 18 June, and for others the time is not ideal. Please let us know at your earliest convenience if you would be able to attend the call if it is moved to the any of the following options: OPTION 1: 1 hour earlier, to 16:00-17:30 UTC at 90 minutes OPTION 2: 1 hour earlier to 16:00-17:00 UTC at 60 minutes OPTION 3: 2 hours earlier to 15:00-16:30 UTC at 90 minutes Thank you very much for your assistance and please be on the lookout for a meeting notice on Sunday, or very early Monday. We hope you have a nice weekend! Best, Mary, Ariel, Berry, and Julie From: Gnso-rpm-data <gnso-rpm-data-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Ariel Liang <ariel.liang(a)icann.org> Date: Friday, June 15, 2018 at 2:56 PM To: "gnso-rpm-data(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-data(a)icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-rpm-data] Actions & Notes: RPM Data Sub Team 15 June 2018 Dear All, Please see below the action items and notes captured by staff from the Data Sub Team call held on 15 June 2018 (1600 UTC). Staff have posted to the wiki space the action items and notes. Please note that these will be high-level notes and are not meant as a substitute for the transcript or recording. The recording, AC chat, and attendance records are posted on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/x/ZYMpBQ [community.icann.org] Have a great weekend! Best Regards, Ariel Ariel Xinyue Liang Policy Analyst | Washington, DC Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) ---------------- ACTION ITEM Staff to ask Sub Team members’ availability to join the Monday, 18 June meeting at 17:00 UTC; if low availability, staff to propose an alternative time. (Done) NOTES Q2 2nd option: the first new gTLD was launched in July 2013, so change 3 years to 5 years If the following questions do not apply to the registrants, redirect them to the potential registrant survey section. Q2b Change 3 years to 5 years. Q2c Change 3 years to 5 years Q2e "If Yes, did you register the domain name for which you received a Claims Notice?" is a core question. We want to know why they went ahead despite receiving a Claims Notice. We want to know qualitatively why they did so. It goes with the same set of questions below. Same rationale may apply to the second time they receive the Claims Notice, or more. We spent a lot of time asking why people did NOT proceed, and there could be a lot of reasons. We do have a set of questions asking people why they DO proceed. If they did so, they may have made some serious decisions here, and we need to know why. Perhaps provide some multiple-choice options listing possible reasons why they proceed in order to dive deeper. Suggestions for options to be included in a multiple-choice question I would not be sued if I continued I would not be subject to an action to take the domain if I continued No one else had a legal right to the name I had legitimate or legal right to the domain It does not seem like too much trouble to continue I consulted with an attorney and it was fine I was committed to the domain name for person/business reasons It matched investments names I already own in a portfolio (going with "theme" registrants) I didn't understand the notice Something else [explain] There are portfolio registrants and they may have received many notices. May ask a quantitative question, "How many times this has happened to you?" and let them choose via multiple-choice options. Follow up with a question "For any of the domain name that you decide to proceed with registration, check all the reasons that apply". Bearing in mind that some people could have big portfolios. Is there anyway to encourage the survey taker to write a narrative and explain themselves? If we do get the response, it would be very helpful. Registrants with big portfolio might actually prefer a narrative option. Q2g There is an agreement to funnel this type of questions into potential registrant survey. Q2g(i) The structure is a bit confusing Need to be clear that this question should apply to anyone who is presented a Claims Notice, regardless whether he/she completed the registration or not Which of the following best describes your understanding of the purpose of the Claims Notice? Don’t know/Not sure -- we need a "what a heck" option there too Q2g(ii) – Q2h(i) Re virtue.food - oppose to specify as people may give a false hypothetical May want to specify "I plan to start a business or already have a business under that name" If we specify the business aspect, how would that help us? We don't know the background of the registrant why they proceed or not proceed. We don't know what the registrants are thinking, so we are asking them, at least we will get some insight and useful answers if we give them an example to think about. If we just give them a notice, they would not know what to do with that. We did give examples on other surveys to target non-expert. How do we know there is no brand using virtue.food. How do we know survey takers’ level of knowledge whether it would be an issue or not? We can ask clarifying questions at the end, but ask examples first to provide some context. You may need to place the “demographic” type of questions first to get into the mindset of the survey takers, and we can get a sense of the trend: Would you be nervous to register the domain name? -- provide options If yes, what actions would you take? -- provide options If no, what is the reason? -- provide options Does trademark law matter? Concerned if asking those questions first may have a bad effect on the survey takers, e.g., asking them about trademark law knowledge. It may be super hard to ask each survey taker to consider each scenario. Worth asking trademark only after asking some hypothetical questions, otherwise it would trigger some negative reaction. Don't need to limit this question for the people who have not completed the registration. Proposed new order: Show trademark claims notice. Q2g(iv) – confidence? Would you consult with an attorney? [maybe also “would you talk with domain name registrar, etc?] Q2h(i) – Why you abandoned? Q2g(iii) – trademark law knowledge We are making assumption that the user is going to assume the claims has something to do with the trademark. Most people don't know the difference between trademark and copyright. That's a mistake in the premise of each Q that the analysis group needs to resolve. Maybe this is the FIRST question and there is a matrix. so different paths of questioning need to be clarified... One possibility is to ask registrants what they imagine their use would be. If we will have enough respondents, we could sub group them. Those general Qs should appear after the more specific responses to virtue.food Q2h(i) We are asking why they did not proceed, and it is not with respect to virtue.food. Where are we asking them what they are doing with virtue.food? This question is for people who have abandoned. Everyone should be asked for this question. It is doubtful that we will get a lot of registrant that receives claims notice. Discussion about the open-ended questions Narrative responses can become cumbersome. It is fine to have a few in the survey, but the more complicated question is, the more loaded the responses would be. To have a lot of these questions would make it difficult for the respondent to respond, and can lower response rate and increase dropout rate. Some open text questions may be better for interview survey. Form survey would not have the opportunity to redirect the answer. Wide range of responses in open text field can make the analysis of the responses difficult and it would be hard to summarize the results in a simple way. There is difference between "Other___" and the larger open text field asking very open-ended question. Discussion about hypothetical questions Reference page 28-29 of the RFP Appendix regarding the comments for/against hypothetical questions Getting into use cases is different from hypothetical. There are general categories that people fall into. Give people the general categories. If we ask hypothetical questions of Registrants, I would like to return to TM/Brand owner survey to include some hypos. What would be the difference? I feel like that is a different kind of request for information. That would be something to ask in the design phase of a project not necessarily an evaluation phase. I'm ok with the page 29 scenario since we get an understanding of what the respondent is thinking when they answer. Consider the alternative to hypothetical listed on page 29 The questions about actual events and actions will provide metrics; hypos will prove opinions. We must somehow separate the two if we include them. Why the hypothetical question falls into the registrant survey? Q2g, Q2g(i), Q2g(ii) are inspired by the potential registrant survey questions. We want to know the set of people who register domain name, and when they see the trademark claims notices, what they are doing with them. To provide use cases is because it is hard for registrant to understand in the abstract. There is no way to ask such question without something to think about. The only way to get an answer to the question is by showing claims notice and see what they think. If you got a claims notice.... [Qs] AND here is a claims notice... [ Q] AG suggestion: Keep the hypo question for the potential registrant survey In the registrant survey, ask respondents did they receive claims survey, what they did to it, what was the purpose of their registration, etc. elicit the insight without providing a hypothetical scenario? Is it possible that most people taking the survey are legacy domain name registrants? We account for those potential respondents and try to filter them in the survey. It does not make a lot of sense to differentiate the registrants and potential registrants in two different surveys. There are a lot of overlapping paths. It should be one survey with branching paths. The people who said “I have received a claims notice, but didn't have the use case” should be given the opportunity to provide useful responses.

1 1