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

Close to Final Survey Questions - Comment by Thu 02 Aug 16:00 UTC
by Ariel Liang Aug. 1, 2018

Aug. 1, 2018

Dear Data Sub Team members, Analysis Group has further revised the draft Sunrise & Claims surveys based on the input/feedback from the Sub Team. They continue to be concerned about the length of the registrar and registry operator surveys, and suggest that respondents for each of those surveys be given a choice of which subsections of the survey they would like to address. This could be implemented in a similar way to how the trademark owner survey has been divided. IMPORTANT: Lead authors please review the revised surveys and provide your feedback by Thursday, 02 August at 16:00 UTC (48 hours). Others in the Sub Team are welcome to review as well. This deadline is set per timeline requirement, as the survey questions need to be finalized this week for AG to proceed with the programming of the surveys. To facilitate the review process, staff have converted the clean version of the revised surveys into Google Docs; the Google Docs have been shared with AG so they can view the comments/suggested edits at the same time. You may also find the redline version (.word files) attached for reference: * Registry Operators (Lead: Kristine Dorrain): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-S-7tk3BZMkD15XWnno7VQP4PtJVr60B9ltLnfM… * Registrars (Lead: Susan Payne): https://docs.google.com/document/d/139E06nx1-dlkbTfQg7S9N_f3AZQ9Tr57RJKCTU2… * Brand/Trademark Owners(Lead: Michael Graham): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ky5nRqI2VEHX3cWptYG5gAU1HMMRrLXf83f922R… * Actual/Potential Registrants (Lead: Rebecca Tushnet): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1UVVzM8lTSiMC7N89OoY8VWPbVg8KVb8N3xRQlZJ… Based on the discussion last week, the lead authors/Sub Team members will conduct this final review online. Sub Team call is hence not scheduled. Once the final survey questions are signed off by the Sub Team, they will be forwarded to the full WG as a FYI. Thank you all for your hard work pushing toward the finishing line of launching the surveys! Best Regards, Mary, Julie, Ariel, and Berry

2 1

Recordings, attendance & AC chat from the Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) Sub Team for Data call on Wednesday, 25 July 2018
by Julie Bisland July 25, 2018

July 25, 2018

Dear All, Please find the attendance and AC chat of the call attached to this email, and the MP3 and AC recording links below for the Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) Sub Team for Data call held Wednesday, 25 July 2018 at 17:00 UTC. Attendance of the call is also posted on the agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/iwBpBQ MP3: https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-rpm-review-data-25jul18-en.mp3 AC Recording: https://participate.icann.org/p3dxsfk0u7u/<https://participate.icann.org/p3dxsfk0u7u/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=59fec3246e3b15ff…> 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, Julie

1 0

ACTIONS & NOTES: RPM Data Sub Team 25 July 2018
by Ariel Liang July 25, 2018

July 25, 2018

Dear All, Please see below the action items and notes captured by staff from the Data Sub Team call held on 25 July 2018 (17:00-18:30 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 recording. The recording, AC chat, and attendance records are posted on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/x/iwBpBQ. Best Regards, Ariel Ariel Xinyue Liang GNSO Policy Support Specialist Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) == ACTION ITEMS * AG to rephrase Q22b to "Have any of the domain name applicant who have received the Claims Notice informed you that they do not understand the Claims Notice?" * AG to replace the grids in Q26a/Q26b with open ended questions and reference suggested wordings in the note & Google Doc. * AG to confirm whether there is a gating question in the Registrar Survey about “Do you offer any new gTLDs?”, or something similar to that effect. * AG to include the point of outreach to smaller TM owners in the cover note of the TM survey and stress that survey outreach needs to be as broad as possible. * Staff to email the full WG to solicit 3-4 volunteers for Beta Testing. Beta tester do not need to be familiar with the survey questions. * Staff to check with GDD whether we can distribute the survey only to the registrars that have signed the 2013 RAA. * Staff to reach out to IPC/BC/CSG leadership to request help distributing the survey to their membership & mailing list, emphasizing the outreach to smaller TM owners. * Staff to check with Brian for TM survey distribution to ECTA: http://www.ecta.org/committees/detail/internet-committee. * Staff to check with Lori about TM survey distribution to INTA and INTA’s Internet and Data Protection Committee * Staff to contact all membership in the multistakeholder community (through their leadership), particularly IPC/BC/CSG, for the distribution of the actual/potential registrant survey. * Staff to check with Comms Team about icann.org announcement. * Susan to help distribute the survey to Cyberspace Team (MARQUES corollary) and the CITMA Internet Committee NOTES I. Revised TM Survey Q21a. * Lori suggests "Why did you rank these as you did"? Q22 * Provide a ready definition of NORN/Notice of Registered Name (maybe via that little question mark or a hyperlink in the survey question)? Lori to check the suggested wording. Q22b * ACTION ITEM: AG to rephrase the question to "Have any of the domain name applicant who have received the Claims Notice informed you that they do not understand the Claims Notice?" Q26a / Q26b * Not sure whether the table is helpful. Asking open ended question would more likely get more accurate numbers and make it less intimidating. * Replace both grids with sub questions, for example: How many total UDRP, URS, litigation cases have you filed against new gTLDs? How many of them received NORN? How many of them are exact matches? How many of these domain names are exact match but include additional elements? How many have creative spelling? Did you win? How many of those did you win? * Make the questions optional in case the respondents cannot answer. * Four types of claims: * Where you received a NORN, * Where the domain name was an exact match of a trademark your recorded with the TMCH, * Where the domain name included an exact match of a trademark you recorded with the TMCH with other words or characters, * Where the domain name included a typographic or other variant of a trademark you recorded with the TMC. * The only issue is that respondents can check 1) plus any of the others. 1) and 2) could overlap and it would make it difficult for analyzing the data. * Why are we asking the question? We are trying to figure out how effective is the NORN, as it is based on exact matches. * All of these sub questions refer to the exact match to a trademark that a brand owner recorded in the TMCH. Insert this language/clarification. * ACTION ITEM: AG to replace the grids with open ended questions and reference suggested wordings in the note & Google Doc. After Q27c * If we split up the survey, the question about “Sunrise vs. Claims, which is more useful” needs to appear at the end of each shorter surveys. II. Next Steps and Timeline * Not anticipating further meetings about the further revised surveys, but staff/AG will invite the lead authors/Sub Team to review the further revised version. For the TM survey, Michael and Lori in particular should have an opportunity to review the changes. * AG to circulate the final version of surveys by the end of this week (week of 23 July). * Final surveys (after review/approval by the lead authors/Sub Teams) will be sent to the full WG as a FYI, together with the Inception Report. * AG to program the surveys next week (week of 30 July). * Beta testing of the survey, early part of the week of 6 Aug. * ACTION ITEM: Staff to email the full WG to solicit 3-4 volunteers for Beta Testing. Beta tester do not need to be familiar with the survey questions. * Surveys would be released on a rolling basis in the week of 6 August after Beta Testing. * AG will provide frequent updates on the number of responses received on each survey. * Second full WG meeting in Sep (Sep 12) to begin reviewing the survey results. III. Survey Distribution Plan 2. Registrar * We only need registrars that have signed the latest version of RAA to respond to the survey. * ACTION ITEM: AG to confirm whether there is a gating question about “Do you offer any new gTLDs?”, or something similar to that effect. * ACTION ITEM: Staff to check with GDD whether we can distribute the survey only to the registrars that have signed the 2013 RAA. 3. TM * Should also target smaller companies that may have limited participation or access to the new gTLDs. Some concerns about the INTA survey is that the correspondents are mostly large companies. We should reach law firms that fill out the survey on behalf of their TM clients. They may be dealing with a good number of smaller companies. * ACTION ITEM: AG to include the point of outreach to smaller TM owners in the cover note of the TM survey and stress that survey outreach needs to be as broad as possible. * ACTION ITEM: Staff to reach out to IPC/BC/CSG leadership to request help distributing the survey to their membership & mailing list, emphasizing the outreach to smaller TM owners. * ACTION ITEM: Staff to check with Brian about TM survey distribution to ECTA: http://www.ecta.org/committees/detail/internet-committee. * ACTION ITEM: Staff to check with Lori about survey distribution to INTA and INTA’s Internet and Data Protection Committee * ACTION ITEM: Susan to help distribute the survey to Cyberspace Team (MARQUES corollary) and the CITMA Internet Committee 4. Actual Registrant * NCSG/NCUC/NPOC/At-Large are a narrow group of registrants as they are actively engaged in ICANN. It’s important that we try to get a spread across the universe of domain registrants. For that, distributing to customers of a selection of registrars seems to me to be the most diverse target group, provided that they do not self-select who they contact – although, I agree that they may be unwilling to do this. * Contacting some specific registrars to get their buy-in would seem to be the best hope (rather than going via the RrSG). * ACTION ITEM: Staff to contact all membership in the multistakeholder community (through their leadership), particularly IPC/BC/CSG, for the distribution of the actual registrant survey. 5. Potential Registrant * ACTION ITEM: Staff to contact all membership in the multistakeholder community (through their leadership), particularly IPC/BC/CSG, for the distribution of the potential registrant survey. 6. Other Channels * ACTION ITEM: Staff to check with Comms Team about icann.org announcement.

1 0

Sunrise & Claims Survey Distribution Plans and Response Rate
by Ariel Liang July 25, 2018

July 25, 2018

Dear Data Sub Team members, Analysis Group have discussed with staff the proposed distribution plans and target response rates for the Sunrise & Claims surveys. Depending on how quickly we would be able wrap up the TM survey, we may or may not get to discuss the survey distribution plans during tomorrow’s call. We hereby relay the information and kick off the discussion about this topic on the mailing list, so all Sub Team members could review and chime in. We would greatly appreciate your input and feedback! Thank you, Mary, Julie, Ariel, and Berry == 1. Registry Survey * ICANN Staff to send out the survey directly through the GDD Customer Support Team to Registry Operators * According to GDD, the total number of unique registry companies is about 540; there are about 270 unique registry companies that manage multiple TLDs. * Staff will ask GDD whether they can filter the different categories of Registry Operators (e.g., generic, brand, geographic) when distributing the Registry Survey. If not, AG suggests adding a gating question at the beginning of the Registry Survey, asking respondents to identify whether they are brand registries or not. * ICANN Staff to contact the leadership of CPH/RySG to request help distributing the survey to their membership & mailing list, with GDD facilitating the communication * There are 85 companies in the RySG membership roster: https://www.rysg.info/rysg-membership-roster * Response rate: To render the results statistically significant, the desired response rate is 10% of the total universe of Registry Operators (about 50 companies). Given the current survey length, AG expects to get responses from 5% of Registry Operators. 2. Registrar Survey * ICANN Staff to send out the survey directly through the GDD Customer Support Team to Registrars * According to GDD, the total number of unique ICANN accredited registrar companies (including registrar families) is about 450 * ICANN Staff to contact the leadership of CPH/RrSG to request help distributing the survey to their membership & mailing list, with GDD facilitating the communication * There are 107 companies in the RrSG membership roster: http://icannregistrars.org/members-list/ * Response rate: To render the results statistically significant, the desired response rate is 10% of the total universe of accredited Registrars (about 45 companies). Given the current survey length and its experience with the TMCH review survey, AG expects to get responses from 5% of Registrars. 3. TM & Brand Owner Survey * ICANN Staff to contact the leadership of CSG/IPC/BC to request help distributing the survey to their membership & mailing list * ICANN Staff to contact GSE team to request help distributing the survey to their relevant contact * Analysis Group to contact Deloitte to request help distributing the survey to trademark and brand owners with validated trademarks in the TMCH and/or their trademark agents * Analysis Group to contact INTA to request help distributing the survey among their members. * Question: AG asks whether it would be more effective if Lori Schulman helps do the outreach to INTA, including helping distribute the survey to INTA’s Internet and Data Protection Committee, as well as MARQUES and CITMA Internet Committees * Response rate: To render the results statistically significant, the desired response rate is 50 companies that are trademark owners. Given the current survey length, AG doesn’t think the desired response rate would be attainable. 4. Actual Registrant Survey * ICANN Staff to contact the leadership of NCSG/NCUC/NPOC/At-Large to request help distributing the survey to their membership & mailing list * ICANN Staff to contact GSE team to request help distributing the survey to their relevant contact * ICANN Staff to contact Registrars to request help distributing the survey to their customers who have registered new gTLD domain names, with GDD facilitating the communication * AG thinks that the registrars may not be willing to participate in this outreach attempt; staff are following up with GDD to check the feasibility. * On each survey for other target groups, AG could ask if the respondent has registered a domain name in a new gTLD and if so if they would be willing to take another short survey (i.e., the actual registrant survey). This could potentially bias the sample of respondents if many respondents from one target group agree to participate, (e.g., if many TM holders choose to proceed with the registrant survey). However, AG could add a question at the beginning of the survey to indicate the respondent’s original target group for the Sub Team/WG to evaluate the results. * Response rate: To render the results statistically significant, the desired response rate is 50 complete responses. Whether the response rate is attainable will depend on how many potential respondents are reached and how targeted the outreach is. 5. Potential Registrant Survey * Analysis Group to use Research now SSI’s online panels to reach potential registrants in North America and English-speaking countries outside of North America (UK, Hong Kong, India, Singapore, South Africa) * ICANN Staff to contact the leadership of NCSG/NCUC/NPOC/At-Large to request help distributing the survey to their membership & mailing list * ICANN Staff to contact GSE team to request help distributing the survey to their relevant contact * ICANN Staff to contact Registrars to request help distributing the survey to their customers who attempted to register new gTLD domain names and received Claims Notice, with GDD facilitating the communication * AG thinks that the registrars may not be willing to participate in this outreach attempt; staff are following up with GDD to check the feasibility. * Response rate: To render the results statistically significant, the desired response rate is 150 complete responses. AG expects that the desired response rate is achievable. * Target respondents are the people who are interested in registering a new gTLD domain name or tried to register new gTLDs in the past, not just the ones who attempted to register new gTLD and received Claim Notice before) 6. Other Channels (ICANN Staff to coordinate, if appropriate) * ICANN.org announcement * GNSO website announcement / homepage * ICANN & GNSO Social Media Channels (e.g., Twitter, LinkedIn, Facebook) 7. If unable to reach the desired response rate… * If the response rate is substantially lower than the target minimums, it will be very difficult to generalize the results of the survey. The ability to draw conclusions from the results will be weakened. * To help increase the response rate, AG will monitor the survey completion and provide status report periodically, and coordinate with ICANN staff to send out reminders in a timely manner. * If response rate is below the baseline near the survey closing date, any further outreach or “plan B” would be driven by the analysis of whom responded to the survey. 8. Beta Testing * AG suggests having 3-4 volunteers from the WG (members not necessarily from the Data Sub Team and not extremely familiar with the survey questions) as the testing subject for the Beta Testing.

4 3

Data Sub Team Call, Wednesday, 25 July - Proposed Agenda & Potential Registrant Survey Distribution
by Julie Hedlund July 24, 2018

July 24, 2018

Dear Data Sub Team members, For the call tomorrow (Wed, 25 July) at 17:00-18:30 UTC. Please see below the proposed agenda: 1. Review agenda 2. Discussion of revised survey by Analysis Group and input from lead author: · Brand/Trademark Owners (Lead: Michael Graham): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1NIDTSrEIVrvX3S0n3V-DO-BMlFElNBFhxH53fQs… [docs.google.com] -- see notes/actions below 3. Discuss next steps for finalizing revised surveys and beta testing 4. Start discussion of the survey distribution channels and outreach plans 5. AOB Analysis Group has informed us that they will distribute the potential registrant surveys to target respondents in North America and five English-speaking countries/regions outside of North America (UK, Hong Kong, India, Singapore, South Africa). This expansion would not incur additional costs/expenses. The target response rate for the potential registrant survey would be 150 complete responses, and Analysis Group expects that this is achievable. Following up on the action item, staff are confirming with Analysis Group the survey distribution channels and target response rates for the other surveys. We will report back and consult with the Sub Team the proposed plan. Best Regards, Mary, Berry, Ariel, and Julie Notes/Actions re: Brand/Trademark Owners Survey: Q26 We want to know whether TM owners file a UDRP as a result of NORN. If you have filed a UDRP, did you file against 'exact match', 'near match', 'something match'. We are trying to understand whether "exact match" is sufficient. Question is whether Claims Notice is effective. If a UDRP challenge has been successful and it is not an exact match, then that may necessitate the evaluation of the rule with regard to exact match. Staff have extracted out the data of UDRP cases filed up to the end of 2017. We will get a refresh of the data in the TMCH database and notices sent, and align the notices to the domain registered. There would not be exact alignment. TM owners could have gotten a notice, but they may not file UDRP three months after, etc. There could also be other factors that a TM owner doesn't file UDRP. NORNs do not necessarily correspond to UDRP cases filed. ACTION ITEM: Kristine to provide suggestion/input to Q26.

1 0

Re: [Gnso-rpm-data] [Ext] RE: ACTIONS & NOTES: RPM Data Sub Team 20 July 2018
by Ariel Liang July 23, 2018

July 23, 2018

Hello Michael and all, The recordings and transcripts of meetings when the original TM survey questions were being drafted can be found on the wiki pages below (before Analysis Group was selected through RFP): 08 Dec 2017: https://community.icann.org/x/lxVyB 15 Dec 2017: https://community.icann.org/x/KRxyB 05 Jan 2018: https://community.icann.org/x/YSByB 11 Jan 2018: https://community.icann.org/x/8SJyB The recordings and transcripts of meetings when Analysis Group discussed with the Sub Team the proposed TM survey questions can be found on the wiki pages below: 08 Jun 2018: https://community.icann.org/x/Mi4FBQ 11 Jun 2018: https://community.icann.org/x/NC4FBQ Please let us know if you need anything further information. Have a great weekend! Thank you, Ariel Ariel Xinyue Liang GNSO Policy Support Specialist Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) From: "Michael Graham (ELCA)" <migraham(a)expedia.com> Date: Friday, July 20, 2018 at 7:49 PM To: Ariel Liang <ariel.liang(a)icann.org>, "gnso-rpm-data(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-data(a)icann.org> Subject: [Ext] RE: ACTIONS & NOTES: RPM Data Sub Team 20 July 2018 Could you provide links to the Recordings/Transcripts from our discussions of drafting the Survey questions – in particular those in which we discussed the Trademark Owners survey. Thanks. Michael R. From: Gnso-rpm-data [mailto:gnso-rpm-data-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Ariel Liang Sent: Friday, July 20, 2018 4:40 PM To: gnso-rpm-data(a)icann.org Subject: [Gnso-rpm-data] ACTIONS & NOTES: RPM Data Sub Team 20 July 2018 Dear All, Please see below the action items and notes captured by staff from the Data Sub Team call held on 20 July 2018 (16:00-17:30 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 recording. The recording, AC chat, and attendance records are posted on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/x/vQJdBQ [community.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_…>. Have a great weekend everyone! Best Regards, Ariel Ariel Xinyue Liang GNSO Policy Support Specialist Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) == ACTION ITEMS * AG to include, in the introduction, a statement that “If you are an outside law firm or agent that receive this survey, please answer the survey with one specific client in mind” or something similar to that effect. * AG to do a global change with respect to "you/your company" – this change may affect how certain questions are worded. * AG to remove Q1. * AG to move Q2 after Q3. * AG to reword the Q5a so the respondents can provide numbers directly instead of percentages, with options like 1-5, 6-10, 10-20, etc. * AG to change "enough" to "any" in Q5b. * AG to remove Q6. * AG to change the added phrase in Q8b to: "Did you register a domain name that matches your trademark?" or “Have you registered a domain name that incorporates your trademark?” * AG to use Kristine's suggested wording in Q9. * AG to remove Q13a. * AG to change "type" to "timing" for the bullet 4 in Q17. * AG to delete Q18. * AG to include Q21 in BOTH Sunrise & Claims surveys if we split the full TM survey. * AG to create an introductory paragraph before Q22, defining NORN and setting context per Kristine's suggestion. Check Kristine's comment in the Google doc. * AG to provide estimated dates for survey finalization & launch, including the date when they will begin issuing the surveys on a rolling basis. * AG to circulate the revised surveys to the Sub Team as soon as they are ready on a rolling basis * Kristine to suggest rewording for Q13. * Kristine to provide suggestion/input to Q26. * Staff to tentatively schedule a Data Sub Team call on Wed, 25 July at 17:00-18:30 UTC (DONE) NOTES General Comments * To provide respondents the correct expectation of time needed to complete the surveys, AG will share a preview of the full surveys. AG also agrees to cut up the TM survey into shorter ones (i.e., Sunrise, Claims, Reserved Names), and invite the respondents to select which survey(s) to take. * Not sure whether we should ask respondents to choose the survey(s) to take. Trademark Owners Survey General Comments * Referencing you or your company without referencing outside counsel is a concern. * We should find out on whose behalf the respondents are answering the questions. For the person answering the questions, ask “who are you?” * Where this survey is going to? e.g., law firm, business, trademark owners, etc.? Outside counsel can answer the survey. Law firm can forward the survey to their clients. * ACTION ITEM: AG to include, in the introduction, a statement that “If you are an outside law firm or agent that receive this survey, please answer the survey with one specific client in mind” or something similar to that effect. * ACTION ITEM: AG to do a global change with respect to "you/your company" – this change may affect how certain questions are worded. * Is there a question about how large is your company? On behalf of what part of your company you are responding to the survey? * Surveys like this will usually end up at the IP/TM group of a company. * Preserving anonymity is important, but we can add an option question for people to identify themselves if people are willing to answer. * For large company, there may be more people that can answer such survey, but this is not a problem. Do not limit the number of people who can answer the survey. * Based on INTA experience, if we ask the type of company and the size of company, and ask respondents to identify themselves, the impression of the lack of anonymity would render zero response, as the respondents would be very skeptical. * INTA asked respondents to identify whether they are nonprofit, for profit, and their revenue. Company size does not strictly correspond to company spend. Spend impacts whether TM owners register their trademark in the TMCH, as well as their answers to other follow-up question. If we ask people to self-identify, they need to provide info on their company type and revenue. * Some questions are related to each other. If we split the survey, it may affect these questions. * We should do a deeper study of all the questions and see whether there are any overlapped/interconnected questions that should be addressed. It seems only two questions would be impacted so far. Q1 * ACTION ITEM: AG to remove this question. Q2 * ACTION ITEM: AG to move it after Q3 Q3 * Do not use the word 'Counsel', just use 'Agent’. An in-house person is not necessarily legal counsel; they can be in-house IT groups, paralegals, etc. * If we have external counsel answering the questions, they have to put themselves in the shoe for one specific client. * Reword the question to: "Are you responding on behalf a company, or on behalf of a client?" * Lori does not like "on behalf of" because it doesn't get straight to "inside", "outside" issue. Perhaps reword it as “Are you responding as an employee of your company or as an outside service provider?” Q4 * Can merge with Q1. How many trademarks does the company that you are answering the question for own? If it is 0, terminate the survey. Q5a * ACTION ITEM: AG to reword the question so the respondents can provide numbers directly instead of percentages, with options like 1-5, 6-10, 10-20, etc. Q5b * ACTION ITEM: AG to change "enough" to "any". Q6 * ACTION ITEM: AG to remove this question Q7 * No need to get into the specifics in the wording of the question. Q7a * Added wording intends to clarify what is being asked Q8b * ACTION ITEM: AG to change the added phrase to: "Did you register a domain name that matches your trademark?" or “Have you registered a domain name that incorporates your trademark?” Q9 * If we split the survey, and if respondents do the Claims section later, we no longer have the proactive/reactive remedies as the first part of the survey. We might end up not getting this question in relations to Sunrise. * ACTION ITEM: AG to use Kristine's suggested wording. Q10d * Leave the question open ended * Or change "likely" to "able"? * Simplify the question; don't use the Likert scale and keep the text box in. * We heard from IT people that there are budget hurdles. We want to give them the opportunity to provide the anecdotal evidence. "Do you want to tell us how it affected your ability?" They can talk about one oddball experience via the open text box. * If we have a Likert scale, the options can be: more likely, less likely, completely unable, other ____ * Be more precise for the Likert scale. "High price" or "low price" make me more likely, less likely, completely unable, other___ Q13a * ACTION ITEM: AG to remove this question. Q13c * Take out everything before the second bullet point “[If "Yes"] Do you know if any of those were due to...” * Reword the question to "Do you know any refusal is based on the string being on the reserved name list?" * Some registry operators may have given the domain names to brand owners. This is viewed as a hostile act. That's why Q13c is being asked. There may be a better way to shorten Q13 and its sub questions. * Remove the last bullet "[IF “Yes”] Do you know if any of those were due to the string being on the reserved name list? [MULTIPLE CHOICE]". This may be very rarely answered. * ACTION ITEM: Kristine to suggest rewording for Q13 Q17 * During Sunrise Period, TM owners may need more authorization to do the spend. A lot of information about strategy / portfolio management is proprietary. Many portfolio managers operate on shoestring budget. So when Respondents see the question, they may interpret it as you need budget approval or strategy approval. It is outside the range of their spend or strategy. * The added phrase "from managers or the client" seems sufficient in bullet 3. * The inside baseball question is the one about the "type of Sunrise period" question. If you don't have a struggle about which type of Sunrise period to choose, you wouldn't be able to answer the question. * ACTION ITEM: AG to change "type" to "timing" for the bullet 4. Q18 * ACTION ITEM: AG to delete the question. * We are trying to understand how effective Sunrise is. If TM owners did not participate in it, do they still need to do a lot of reactive stuff? This question belongs in Claims, so should be deleted in this section. Some Claims questions may already cover it. Q21 * If we split the survey, this question should be moved to the end, as it covers both Sunrise and Claims. * ACTION ITEM: AG to include this question in BOTH Sunrise & Claims surveys if we split the full TM survey. Q22 * We should define NORN. This is the first question in the new survey. Include an introductory paragraph. The introductory paragraph can define the NORN. Then follow that introduction with Q22. It makes sense to flag to people that we are talking about Claims in this new section of the survey, and this approach can shorten Q22. * ACTION ITEM: AG to create an introductory paragraph defining NORN and setting context per Kristine's suggestion. Check Kristine's comment in the Google doc. Q26 * We want to know whether TM owners file a UDRP as a result of NORN. If you have filed a UDRP, did you file against 'exact match', 'near match', 'something match'. We are trying to understand whether "exact match" is sufficient. Question is whether Claims Notice is effective. If a UDRP challenge has been successful and it is not an exact match, then that may necessitate the evaluation of the rule with regard to exact match. * Staff have extracted out the data of UDRP cases filed up to the end of 2017. We will get a refresh of the data in the TMCH database and notices sent, and align the notices to the domain registered. There would not be exact alignment. TM owners could have gotten a notice, but they may not file UDRP three months after, etc. * There could also be other factors that a TM owner doesn't file UDRP. NORNs do not necessarily correspond to UDRP cases filed. * ACTION ITEM: Kristine to provide suggestion/input to Q26.

2 1

ACTIONS & NOTES: RPM Data Sub Team 20 July 2018
by Ariel Liang July 20, 2018

July 20, 2018

Dear All, Please see below the action items and notes captured by staff from the Data Sub Team call held on 20 July 2018 (16:00-17:30 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 recording. The recording, AC chat, and attendance records are posted on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/x/vQJdBQ. Have a great weekend everyone! Best Regards, Ariel Ariel Xinyue Liang GNSO Policy Support Specialist Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) == ACTION ITEMS * AG to include, in the introduction, a statement that “If you are an outside law firm or agent that receive this survey, please answer the survey with one specific client in mind” or something similar to that effect. * AG to do a global change with respect to "you/your company" – this change may affect how certain questions are worded. * AG to remove Q1. * AG to move Q2 after Q3. * AG to reword the Q5a so the respondents can provide numbers directly instead of percentages, with options like 1-5, 6-10, 10-20, etc. * AG to change "enough" to "any" in Q5b. * AG to remove Q6. * AG to change the added phrase in Q8b to: "Did you register a domain name that matches your trademark?" or “Have you registered a domain name that incorporates your trademark?” * AG to use Kristine's suggested wording in Q9. * AG to remove Q13a. * AG to change "type" to "timing" for the bullet 4 in Q17. * AG to delete Q18. * AG to include Q21 in BOTH Sunrise & Claims surveys if we split the full TM survey. * AG to create an introductory paragraph before Q22, defining NORN and setting context per Kristine's suggestion. Check Kristine's comment in the Google doc. * AG to provide estimated dates for survey finalization & launch, including the date when they will begin issuing the surveys on a rolling basis. * AG to circulate the revised surveys to the Sub Team as soon as they are ready on a rolling basis * Kristine to suggest rewording for Q13. * Kristine to provide suggestion/input to Q26. * Staff to tentatively schedule a Data Sub Team call on Wed, 25 July at 17:00-18:30 UTC (DONE) NOTES General Comments * To provide respondents the correct expectation of time needed to complete the surveys, AG will share a preview of the full surveys. AG also agrees to cut up the TM survey into shorter ones (i.e., Sunrise, Claims, Reserved Names), and invite the respondents to select which survey(s) to take. * Not sure whether we should ask respondents to choose the survey(s) to take. Trademark Owners Survey General Comments * Referencing you or your company without referencing outside counsel is a concern. * We should find out on whose behalf the respondents are answering the questions. For the person answering the questions, ask “who are you?” * Where this survey is going to? e.g., law firm, business, trademark owners, etc.? Outside counsel can answer the survey. Law firm can forward the survey to their clients. * ACTION ITEM: AG to include, in the introduction, a statement that “If you are an outside law firm or agent that receive this survey, please answer the survey with one specific client in mind” or something similar to that effect. * ACTION ITEM: AG to do a global change with respect to "you/your company" – this change may affect how certain questions are worded. * Is there a question about how large is your company? On behalf of what part of your company you are responding to the survey? * Surveys like this will usually end up at the IP/TM group of a company. * Preserving anonymity is important, but we can add an option question for people to identify themselves if people are willing to answer. * For large company, there may be more people that can answer such survey, but this is not a problem. Do not limit the number of people who can answer the survey. * Based on INTA experience, if we ask the type of company and the size of company, and ask respondents to identify themselves, the impression of the lack of anonymity would render zero response, as the respondents would be very skeptical. * INTA asked respondents to identify whether they are nonprofit, for profit, and their revenue. Company size does not strictly correspond to company spend. Spend impacts whether TM owners register their trademark in the TMCH, as well as their answers to other follow-up question. If we ask people to self-identify, they need to provide info on their company type and revenue. * Some questions are related to each other. If we split the survey, it may affect these questions. * We should do a deeper study of all the questions and see whether there are any overlapped/interconnected questions that should be addressed. It seems only two questions would be impacted so far. Q1 * ACTION ITEM: AG to remove this question. Q2 * ACTION ITEM: AG to move it after Q3 Q3 * Do not use the word 'Counsel', just use 'Agent’. An in-house person is not necessarily legal counsel; they can be in-house IT groups, paralegals, etc. * If we have external counsel answering the questions, they have to put themselves in the shoe for one specific client. * Reword the question to: "Are you responding on behalf a company, or on behalf of a client?" * Lori does not like "on behalf of" because it doesn't get straight to "inside", "outside" issue. Perhaps reword it as “Are you responding as an employee of your company or as an outside service provider?” Q4 * Can merge with Q1. How many trademarks does the company that you are answering the question for own? If it is 0, terminate the survey. Q5a * ACTION ITEM: AG to reword the question so the respondents can provide numbers directly instead of percentages, with options like 1-5, 6-10, 10-20, etc. Q5b * ACTION ITEM: AG to change "enough" to "any". Q6 * ACTION ITEM: AG to remove this question Q7 * No need to get into the specifics in the wording of the question. Q7a * Added wording intends to clarify what is being asked Q8b * ACTION ITEM: AG to change the added phrase to: "Did you register a domain name that matches your trademark?" or “Have you registered a domain name that incorporates your trademark?” Q9 * If we split the survey, and if respondents do the Claims section later, we no longer have the proactive/reactive remedies as the first part of the survey. We might end up not getting this question in relations to Sunrise. * ACTION ITEM: AG to use Kristine's suggested wording. Q10d * Leave the question open ended * Or change "likely" to "able"? * Simplify the question; don't use the Likert scale and keep the text box in. * We heard from IT people that there are budget hurdles. We want to give them the opportunity to provide the anecdotal evidence. "Do you want to tell us how it affected your ability?" They can talk about one oddball experience via the open text box. * If we have a Likert scale, the options can be: more likely, less likely, completely unable, other ____ * Be more precise for the Likert scale. "High price" or "low price" make me more likely, less likely, completely unable, other___ Q13a * ACTION ITEM: AG to remove this question. Q13c * Take out everything before the second bullet point “[If "Yes"] Do you know if any of those were due to...” * Reword the question to "Do you know any refusal is based on the string being on the reserved name list?" * Some registry operators may have given the domain names to brand owners. This is viewed as a hostile act. That's why Q13c is being asked. There may be a better way to shorten Q13 and its sub questions. * Remove the last bullet "[IF “Yes”] Do you know if any of those were due to the string being on the reserved name list? [MULTIPLE CHOICE]". This may be very rarely answered. * ACTION ITEM: Kristine to suggest rewording for Q13 Q17 * During Sunrise Period, TM owners may need more authorization to do the spend. A lot of information about strategy / portfolio management is proprietary. Many portfolio managers operate on shoestring budget. So when Respondents see the question, they may interpret it as you need budget approval or strategy approval. It is outside the range of their spend or strategy. * The added phrase "from managers or the client" seems sufficient in bullet 3. * The inside baseball question is the one about the "type of Sunrise period" question. If you don't have a struggle about which type of Sunrise period to choose, you wouldn't be able to answer the question. * ACTION ITEM: AG to change "type" to "timing" for the bullet 4. Q18 * ACTION ITEM: AG to delete the question. * We are trying to understand how effective Sunrise is. If TM owners did not participate in it, do they still need to do a lot of reactive stuff? This question belongs in Claims, so should be deleted in this section. Some Claims questions may already cover it. Q21 * If we split the survey, this question should be moved to the end, as it covers both Sunrise and Claims. * ACTION ITEM: AG to include this question in BOTH Sunrise & Claims surveys if we split the full TM survey. Q22 * We should define NORN. This is the first question in the new survey. Include an introductory paragraph. The introductory paragraph can define the NORN. Then follow that introduction with Q22. It makes sense to flag to people that we are talking about Claims in this new section of the survey, and this approach can shorten Q22. * ACTION ITEM: AG to create an introductory paragraph defining NORN and setting context per Kristine's suggestion. Check Kristine's comment in the Google doc. Q26 * We want to know whether TM owners file a UDRP as a result of NORN. If you have filed a UDRP, did you file against 'exact match', 'near match', 'something match'. We are trying to understand whether "exact match" is sufficient. Question is whether Claims Notice is effective. If a UDRP challenge has been successful and it is not an exact match, then that may necessitate the evaluation of the rule with regard to exact match. * Staff have extracted out the data of UDRP cases filed up to the end of 2017. We will get a refresh of the data in the TMCH database and notices sent, and align the notices to the domain registered. There would not be exact alignment. TM owners could have gotten a notice, but they may not file UDRP three months after, etc. * There could also be other factors that a TM owner doesn't file UDRP. NORNs do not necessarily correspond to UDRP cases filed. * ACTION ITEM: Kristine to provide suggestion/input to Q26.

2 1

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

July 20, 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 Friday, 20 July 2018 at 16:00 UTC. Attendance of the call is also posted on the agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/vQJdBQ MP3: https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-rpm-review-data-20jul18-en.mp3 <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__audio.icann.org_gnso_g…> AC Recording: https://participate.icann.org/p5ziockhbsi/<https://participate.icann.org/p5ziockhbsi/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=b740c2fc7e873b40…> 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

Re: [Gnso-rpm-data] [Ext] RPM Data Call
by Julie Hedlund July 20, 2018

July 20, 2018

Thanks Michael! From: "Michael Graham (ELCA)" <migraham(a)expedia.com> Date: Friday, July 20, 2018 at 11:59 AM To: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org>, "gnso-rpm-data(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-data(a)icann.org> Subject: [Ext] RPM Data Call I will be a couple minutes late calling in – Michael R.

1 0

RPM Data Call
by Michael Graham (ELCA) July 20, 2018

July 20, 2018

I will be a couple minutes late calling in - Michael R.

1 0

Data Sub Team Call, Friday, 20 July - Proposed Agenda & Potential Registrant Survey Distribution
by Julie Hedlund July 19, 2018

July 19, 2018

Dear Data Sub Team members, Many thanks again to the lead authors that provided comments and suggested edits on the Google Docs. For the call tomorrow (Fri, 20 July) at 16:00-17:30 UTC. Please see below the proposed agenda: 1. Review agenda 2. Discussion of revised survey by Analysis Group and input from lead author: · Brand/Trademark Owners (Lead: Michael Graham): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1NIDTSrEIVrvX3S0n3V-DO-BMlFElNBFhxH53fQs… [docs.google.com] 3. Start discussion of the survey distribution channels and outreach plans 4. AOB Analysis Group has informed us that they will distribute the potential registrant surveys to target respondents in North America and five English-speaking countries/regions outside of North America (UK, Hong Kong, India, Singapore, South Africa). This expansion would not incur additional costs/expenses. The target response rate for the potential registrant survey would be 150 complete responses, and Analysis Group expects that this is achievable. Following up on the action item, staff are confirming with Analysis Group the survey distribution channels and target response rates for the other surveys. We will report back and consult with the Sub Team the proposed plan. Best Regards, Mary, Berry, Ariel, and Julie

1 0

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

July 18, 2018

Dear All, Please see below the action items and notes captured by staff from the Data Sub Team call held on 18 July 2018 (17:00-18:30 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 recording. The recording, AC chat, and attendance records are posted on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/x/ioxHBQ. Best Regards, Ariel Ariel Xinyue Liang GNSO Policy Support Specialist Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) == ACTION ITEMS * Sub Team to review the trademark owners survey and suggest which questions remove/truncate to reduce the length; Sub Team to consider whether splitting the TM survey into shorter surveys based on sections (e.g., Sunrise, Claims, Reserved Names) would be more effective in reducing lengths. * AG to consider the suggestion allowing respondents preview all the questions to set the right expectation (e.g., via a PDF). * AG to provide input on TM survey questions that respondents could not really answer. * AG to consider breaking the TM survey into three short surveys (i.e., Sunrise, Claims, Reserved Names); respondents get links to the three surveys and they can take as many as they'd like; or respondents get randomly selected to take one of the three short surveys based on certain qualification/selection criteria. * AG to consider combining/consolidating Q4g, Q5, and Q6 in the Registrar Survey. * AG to consider combining/consolidating the questions with related tables to reduce the Registry Survey length to 20 questions * AG to clarify in Registry Survey Q2 that we are seeking responses from the actual registry operators, not the backend registry operators. * AG to direct respondents from Q7 to Q10 and Q11, and then ask Q8 and Q9 as add-on questions in Registry Survey. * Staff to schedule a Sub Team meeting on Friday, 20 July at 16:00-17:30 UTC (DONE). NOTES General Comments Regarding Survey Length * Set respondents' expectation and note that they need approximately 20 minutes to complete each survey (instead of 15-20 min). * Create means (e.g., worksheet) for respondents to return to the survey and answer the questions that require research and data gathering. * If specific contact information of individuals is provided, they can return the survey with a password and complete. * Registry survey has 40 questions, registrar 36 questions, and TM survey has 56 questions. The current length of these surveys would cause a lot of drop off. * ACTION ITEM: AG to consider the suggestion to allowing respondents preview all the questions (e.g., via a PDF) * Break the long survey into smaller surveys? Prioritize and reorder the questions so the important questions go first? * If there are no follow-up questions to solicit more elaborate responses, it would be challenging to get WG's approval of the survey results. * If the WG’s interest to get certain data has negative impact on the Sub Team’s ability to obtain data in general, the Sub Team have to challenge the WG. Some data that the WG wants to obtain is not obtainable. TM owners are not keeping record the way that ICANN asks for, for example. * Expedia’s user experience surveys create two paths: 1) just do the rating (stars), 2) provide more extended responses. Consider adopting this approach to let respondents choose whether to complete a short or full survey. * Registries/Registrars have incentive to answer the surveys. * At the beginning TM survey, perhaps spell out the type of legal counsel should take the survey and the type of data/fact that respondents should have it handy to facilitate their process answering the survey. * The lack of clear indication of the time needed to complete the survey would be off putting. * The questions in the TM survey are more general and doable type of questions, and less difficult and intimidating than the CCT-RT survey. We should let survey takers understand the specific information we are seeking instead of asking them to analyze it. * Ideas for lowering the drop-off rate for the TM survey: * Present a short survey option and a full survey option (e.g., click here to answer Qs on Claims; here to answer on Sunrise?) * After presenting the short survey, ask respondents whether they want to take a subsequent full survey, * Inform respondents that they would need 40 min to complete the survey, but they will be provided with a password to save their responses and return to the survey to complete; AG could look into setting this as a default option – two-step process: Want to take the survey? Email us, and AG will provide an individual password, * Calculate the time needed to complete each section of the survey. * ACTION ITEM: AG to provide input on questions that respondents could not really answer. * The short/full survey approach sounds reasonable, but AG would leave to Data Sub Team to determine whether this approach would get the information that is ultimately useful. * Would the short survey approach skew the results? Not sure whether skewed responses matter as the goal is to get the data. It is better to get the data we can get rather than "all or nothing." * If we split the long survey into short surveys, prefer randomization instead of inviting respondents to pick and choose which survey(s) they wish to take (may need to qualify respondents differently). This would generate less bias. If there is no randomization, you could get responses from people who have strong opinions about certain issue, hence more tendency to bias. * ACTION ITEM: AG to consider breaking the TM survey into three short surveys (i.e., Sunrise, Claims, Reserved Names); respondents get links to the three surveys and they can take as many as they'd like; or respondents get randomly selected to take one of the three short surveys based on certain qualification/selection criteria. ** Registrar Survey Q1 * Make the question more direct: Which registrar are you employed by? Q2 * Ask where the headquarters of the registrar is. Q4g, Q5, Q6 * ACTION ITEM: AG to consider combining/consolidating Q4g, Q5, and Q6. Q19 * Reword the question to "At what point in the registration process do you typically display the Claims Notice..." * Options for drop down menu may include the relevant steps of a domain name registration process: * WHOIS Lookup * When the domain name is selected * When the domain name is added to the cart * When the consumer log into the registrar account or create an account * When the consumer is present with the terms & clickthrough agreements * When the consumer is present with the renewal information * When the consumer proceeds to check out * Most people may get the Claims Notice just before the check-out step. ** Registry Survey General Comments * ACTION ITEM: AG to consider combining/consolidating the questions with related tables to reduce the survey length to 20 questions Q2 * ACTION ITEM: AG to clarify that we are seeking responses from the actual registry operators, not the backend registry operators. Q7-12 * ACTION ITEM: AG to direct respondents from Q7 to Q10 and Q11, and then ask Q8 and Q9 as add-on questions Q9 * Respondents who already offer such TLDs would be able to understand the vagueness of the wording. Leave it as is. Q10a * "Publishing reserved names would violate local laws" would apply to a small number of jurisdictions. * Drop-down menu options: * Such publication would violate local laws * Trade secret * Reluctance to post competitive data * OPEN field Q16 * This is a concluding question, put at the end. Q17 * Old wording is confusing too, e.g., 'special rules', 'certain groups'. * Do we want to offer special group access based on their restricted TLDs and eligibility criteria? There may be special rules for government affiliated groups to register restricted TLDs before brand owners (e.g., police.city). Q17 should be worded broad enough but at the same to put some parameters around it. * Take out 'brand owners' in the brackets * Remove “Sunrise"; just say "…first access to their target audience..." Q21 * Did you face any challenges with regard to both of your LRP/APLP and mandatory sunrise period? ** Actual / Potential Registrant Survey Q5a * Concerned about the "more than once". Respondents may not remember. * Ask a follow up question -- For subsequent time(s) that you get a claims notice, did you do anything differently? Open Ended follow-up question could provide the opportunity for respondents to elaborate without making it onerous. * We really want to hear back from registrants that received Claims Notice more than once.

1 0

Recordings, attendance & AC chat from Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) Sub Team for Data call on Wednesday, 18 July 2018
by Michelle DeSmyter July 18, 2018

July 18, 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, 18 July 2018 at 17:00 UTC. Attendance of the call is also posted on the agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/ioxHBQ MP3: https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-rpm-review-data-18jul18-en.mp3 AC Recording: https://participate.icann.org/p377bxw073v/ 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

Data Sub Team Call, Wed 18 July - Proposed Agenda & Potential Registrant Survey Distribution
by Ariel Liang July 17, 2018

July 17, 2018

Dear Data Sub Team members, Many thanks again to the lead authors that provided comments and suggested edits on the Google Doc. Analysis Group are reviewing the input in preparation for tomorrow’s discussion For the call tomorrow (Wed, 18 July) at 17:00-18:30 UTC. Please see below the proposed agenda: 1. Review agenda 2. Discussion of revised surveys by Analysis Group and input from lead authors: · Registry Operators (Lead: Kristine Dorrain): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ql3_l2W9dSq-dDAvDuSWggJF4Icww4j6G98va9-… · Registrars (Lead: Susan Payne): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1K3njd0IP8--FSxskS0JAMDrDEnS_wel5iqqkil3… · Brand/Trademark Owners (Lead: Michael Graham): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1NIDTSrEIVrvX3S0n3V-DO-BMlFElNBFhxH53fQs… · Actual/Potential Registrants (Lead: Rebecca Tushnet): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1i_1Eu8gON2J_UsL1d113cUEa7MI0E8Lt6d3bzW1… 3. Start discussion of the survey distribution channels and outreach plans 4. AOB Analysis Group also informed us that they will distribute the potential registrant surveys to target respondents in North America and five English-speaking countries/regions outside of North America (UK, Hong Kong, India, Singapore, South Africa). This expansion would not incur additional costs/expenses. The target response rate for the potential registrant survey would be 150 complete responses, and Analysis Group expects that this is achievable. Following up on the action item, staff are confirming with Analysis Group the survey distribution channels and target response rates for the other surveys. We will report back and consult with the Sub Team the proposed plan. Best Regards, Mary, Julie, Berry, Ariel

1 0

Re: [Gnso-rpm-data] [Ext] RE: REMINDER: Revised Sunrise & Claims Draft Surveys
by Ariel Liang July 13, 2018

July 13, 2018

Thank you very much Kristine! Best Regards, Mary, Julie, Ariel, and Berry From: "Dorrain, Kristine" <dorraink(a)amazon.com> Date: Friday, July 13, 2018 at 11:46 AM To: Ariel Liang <ariel.liang(a)icann.org>, "gnso-rpm-data(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-data(a)icann.org> Subject: [Ext] RE: [Gnso-rpm-data] REMINDER: Revised Sunrise & Claims Draft Surveys Sorry, I was on vacation last week and just catching up. I’ll work on this today. Thanks. Kristine From: Gnso-rpm-data [mailto:gnso-rpm-data-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Ariel Liang Sent: Friday, July 13, 2018 9:27 AM To: gnso-rpm-data(a)icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-rpm-data] REMINDER: Revised Sunrise & Claims Draft Surveys Dear Data Sub Team members, Since there has been no comment/suggested edit on the Google Docs of the revised surveys yet, staff are sending this second reminder. It would be extremely helpful if Kristine, Susan, Michael, Rebecca, as well as other members could provide input on the google doc as soon as feasible, if at all possible, by COB today, so that Analysis Group could review the comments/suggested edits before the call next week. GNSO Secretariat team will schedule a call for the Sub Team on Wednesday, 18 July at 17:00-18:30 UTC. * Registry Operators (Lead: Kristine Dorrain): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ql3_l2W9dSq-dDAvDuSWggJF4Icww4j6G98va9-… [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_docume…> * Registrars (Lead: Susan Payne): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1K3njd0IP8--FSxskS0JAMDrDEnS_wel5iqqkil3… [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_docume…> * Brand/Trademark Owners(Lead: Michael Graham): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1NIDTSrEIVrvX3S0n3V-DO-BMlFElNBFhxH53fQs… [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_docume…> * Actual/Potential Registrants (Lead: Rebecca Tushnet): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1i_1Eu8gON2J_UsL1d113cUEa7MI0E8Lt6d3bzW1… [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_docume…> For reference, redline version are in the word docs attached. Thank you again for your time and contribution! Best Regards, Mary, Julie, Ariel, and Berry From: Ariel Liang <ariel.liang(a)icann.org<mailto:ariel.liang@icann.org>> Date: Monday, July 9, 2018 at 2:04 PM 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: Revised Sunrise & Claims Draft Surveys Dear Data Sub Team members, We hope this email finds you well. Analysis Group has revised the draft surveys of the registry operators, registrars, brand/trademark holders, and actual/potential registrants. Please note that AG has combined the surveys of registrant and potential registrants into one document because the questions overlap to a high degree. As per action item from the call prior to ICANN62, the original authors of the respective surveys would take the lead to review/comment on the revised surveys. To facilitate the review process, staff have converted the clean version of the revised surveys into Google Docs; the Google Docs have been shared with AG so they can view the comments/suggested edits at the same time. You may also find the redline version (.word files) attached for reference: * Registry Operators (Lead: Kristine Dorrain): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ql3_l2W9dSq-dDAvDuSWggJF4Icww4j6G98va9-… [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_docume…> * Registrars (Lead: Susan Payne): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1K3njd0IP8--FSxskS0JAMDrDEnS_wel5iqqkil3… [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_docume…> * Brand/Trademark Owners(Lead: Michael Graham): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1NIDTSrEIVrvX3S0n3V-DO-BMlFElNBFhxH53fQs… [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_docume…> * Actual/Potential Registrants (Lead: Rebecca Tushnet): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1i_1Eu8gON2J_UsL1d113cUEa7MI0E8Lt6d3bzW1… [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_docume…> Kristine, Susan, Michael, and Rebecca – please be so kind to review and comment/suggest edits via the Google Docs. Others in the Sub Team are welcome to review as well. Based on staff’s understanding, the lead authors could conduct their review of the revised survey online. If needed, the Sub Team may reconvene thereafter to review/discuss the lead authors’ input to the revised surveys. Hence, a Sub Team call this week is unlikely needed. Please comment on the list if you believe a call for the Sub Team this week is necessary. Thank you for your time and contributions! Best Regards, Mary, Julie, Ariel, and Berry

3 3

REMINDER: Revised Sunrise & Claims Draft Surveys
by Ariel Liang July 13, 2018

July 13, 2018

Dear Data Sub Team members & lead authors of surveys, Staff would like to remind you to review the revised TMCH Sunrise & Claims surveys by Analysis Group (email below). As a Sub Team call is likely to be held next week to review the input on the revised questions, it would be extremely helpful if the lead authors (i.e., Kristine, Susan, Michael, and Rebecca) could provide comments/suggested edits on the Google Docs by this Friday, 13 July. Analysis Group also has access to the Google Doc and can view the input prior to the call next week. This would help facilitate the timely finalization of the survey questions. Others in the Sub Team are welcome to review/comment on the Google Doc as well. Thank you! Mary, Julie, Ariel, and Berry From: Ariel Liang <ariel.liang(a)icann.org> Date: Monday, July 9, 2018 at 2:04 PM To: "gnso-rpm-data(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-data(a)icann.org> Subject: Revised Sunrise & Claims Draft Surveys Dear Data Sub Team members, We hope this email finds you well. Analysis Group has revised the draft surveys of the registry operators, registrars, brand/trademark holders, and actual/potential registrants. Please note that AG has combined the surveys of registrant and potential registrants into one document because the questions overlap to a high degree. As per action item from the call prior to ICANN62, the original authors of the respective surveys would take the lead to review/comment on the revised surveys. To facilitate the review process, staff have converted the clean version of the revised surveys into Google Docs; the Google Docs have been shared with AG so they can view the comments/suggested edits at the same time. You may also find the redline version (.word files) attached for reference: * Registry Operators (Lead: Kristine Dorrain): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ql3_l2W9dSq-dDAvDuSWggJF4Icww4j6G98va9-… * Registrars (Lead: Susan Payne): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1K3njd0IP8--FSxskS0JAMDrDEnS_wel5iqqkil3… * Brand/Trademark Owners(Lead: Michael Graham): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1NIDTSrEIVrvX3S0n3V-DO-BMlFElNBFhxH53fQs… * Actual/Potential Registrants (Lead: Rebecca Tushnet): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1i_1Eu8gON2J_UsL1d113cUEa7MI0E8Lt6d3bzW1… Kristine, Susan, Michael, and Rebecca – please be so kind to review and comment/suggest edits via the Google Docs. Others in the Sub Team are welcome to review as well. Based on staff’s understanding, the lead authors could conduct their review of the revised survey online. If needed, the Sub Team may reconvene thereafter to review/discuss the lead authors’ input to the revised surveys. Hence, a Sub Team call this week is unlikely needed. Please comment on the list if you believe a call for the Sub Team this week is necessary. Thank you for your time and contributions! Best Regards, Mary, Julie, Ariel, and Berry

3 3

Revised Sunrise & Claims Draft Surveys
by Ariel Liang July 9, 2018

July 9, 2018

Dear Data Sub Team members, We hope this email finds you well. Analysis Group has revised the draft surveys of the registry operators, registrars, brand/trademark holders, and actual/potential registrants. Please note that AG has combined the surveys of registrant and potential registrants into one document because the questions overlap to a high degree. As per action item from the call prior to ICANN62, the original authors of the respective surveys would take the lead to review/comment on the revised surveys. To facilitate the review process, staff have converted the clean version of the revised surveys into Google Docs; the Google Docs have been shared with AG so they can view the comments/suggested edits at the same time. You may also find the redline version (.word files) attached for reference: * Registry Operators (Lead: Kristine Dorrain): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ql3_l2W9dSq-dDAvDuSWggJF4Icww4j6G98va9-… * Registrars (Lead: Susan Payne): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1K3njd0IP8--FSxskS0JAMDrDEnS_wel5iqqkil3… * Brand/Trademark Owners(Lead: Michael Graham): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1NIDTSrEIVrvX3S0n3V-DO-BMlFElNBFhxH53fQs… * Actual/Potential Registrants (Lead: Rebecca Tushnet): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1i_1Eu8gON2J_UsL1d113cUEa7MI0E8Lt6d3bzW1… Kristine, Susan, Michael, and Rebecca – please be so kind to review and comment/suggest edits via the Google Docs. Others in the Sub Team are welcome to review as well. Based on staff’s understanding, the lead authors could conduct their review of the revised survey online. If needed, the Sub Team may reconvene thereafter to review/discuss the lead authors’ input to the revised surveys. Hence, a Sub Team call this week is unlikely needed. Please comment on the list if you believe a call for the Sub Team this week is necessary. Thank you for your time and contributions! Best Regards, Mary, Julie, Ariel, and Berry

1 0