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

Sunrise & Claims Survey Response Status
by Ariel Liang Oct. 2, 2018

Oct. 2, 2018

Dear Data Sub Team, Staff would like to provide you a quick update on the Sunrise & Claims survey response status. Analysis Group has closed the survey for trademark owners, actual registrants, and potential registrants on 28 September. Since the target response rates have been reached for these three groups, Analysis Group begins their process compiling/analyzing the survey responses. In particular, we greatly appreciate the help from WG members, especially Lori, Susan, Marie, Brian W, and others who helped promote the survey among the trademark owners and representatives. To attain the target response rates for actual/potential registrants, Research Now SSI has been instrumental, as the great majority of responses came from their global panel. Regarding the survey for registries and registrars, AG has extended it till Friday, 5 October. There has been a challenge receiving responses from these two groups. ICANN’s GDD sent the survey links directly to the contracted party contacts. They also sent a reminder about the survey via the contracted parties briefing on Thursday, 27 September. Furthermore, the survey and the reminder have been circulated via the mailing lists of RrSG and RySG. We also thank the help from WG members (e.g., Kristine, Maxim, etc.) for completing/promoting the survey. Please see the counts of responses as of today: Actual Domain Name Registrants (Group 1) Potential Domain Name Registrants (Group 2) Trademark and Brand Owner (Group 3) Registry Operators (Group 4) Registrars (Group 5) Target Number of Completes 50 150 50 50 45 Complete 81 164 60 13 15 Incomplete 258 73 17 27 Disqualified 9 2 4 Given the current counts, it does not seem that the desired response rates for registries and registrars would be attainable. However, to meet the project timeline and allow the survey results to be presented at ICANN63, Analysis Group plans to close the survey on 5 October. Even if the survey is extended further, there is no guarantee that we would receive the target number of responses. We would greatly appreciate your help encouraging your fellow colleagues from registries and registrars to complete the survey. Any additional responses would help the analysis of results and enhance the ability to draw conclusions. Please let us know if you have any suggestion/comment with regard to soliciting more responses from registries and registrars. Best Regards, Mary, Julie, Ariel & Berry

1 0

Final TM Owner & Registry Operator Survey Links
by Ariel Liang Sept. 5, 2018

Sept. 5, 2018

Dear Data Sub Team members, Analysis Group just sent us the finalized Trademark Owner and Registry survey links: * Trademark Holder: http://ICANNTrademarkHolders.cloudssi.com/login.html * Registry Operators: http://ICANNRegistryOperators.cloudssi.com/login.html They informed us that all the requested changes (approved by Data Sub Team) have been implemented, but if you see any problems or issues after checking these links, please let staff know at your earliest convenience today. Meanwhile, we will move forward with preparing the launch and promotion of all the four surveys, starting today. Thank you all for your time and help! Best Regards, Mary, Julie, Ariel & Berry

1 0

UPDATE: TM Owner Survey - Beta Testers' Feedback
by Ariel Liang Aug. 31, 2018

Aug. 31, 2018

Dear Data Sub Team members, Michael got back to staff about his feedback to testers’ comments and Susan’s input. There are a few changes to the feedback we provided to Analysis Group yesterday, and please see changes in red text in line. Specifically, the changes apply to General Comment, Q2, Q6, Q15, Q18, and Q19. We already informed Analysis Group this update. Thank you for your help, Michael! Best Regards, Mary, Julie, Ariel & Berry === General Comment: * Do a global change of replacing “company” with “company/organization” in all applicable survey questions and answer options in order to cover the non-profit, non-commercial entities * Add “approximately” in an appropriate place in ALL applicable questions where respondents are asked to provide volume/number/range, etc. Please apply this change to ALL questions in ALL surveys that this type of question applies. * Please clarify that in this survey, we are specifically asking questions about new gTLDs, not legacy TLDs such as .com, .org, .net, or country code top level domains such as .us, .eu, .cn. Please use the same clarification approach used in the Registrant survey. * Place the original Q2 AFTER the original Q3 Q0: Approximately how many trademark registrations does your company own? * If a respondent selects “don’t know/not sure”, he/she should be able to continue with the rest of the survey. Q1: Approximately how many of your company’s trademarks have been recorded with the Trademark Clearinghouse (TMCH)? * If a respondent selects “don’t know/not sure”, he/she should be able to continue with the rest of the survey. Q2: How many domain names matching any of your company’s trademarks have you applied to register during any new generic top-level domain (gTLD) Sunrise Period? * Add “Approximately” at the beginning of the question. * Add “(select this option only if there is no other source or person that can supply an approximate number)” after “Don’t know / Not sure” * If someone selects “not sure/don’t know”, the survey should NOT terminate, and the respondent should be able to proceed. Q3: Has your company registered a domain name matching any of your company's trademarks in a new generic top-level domain (new gTLD)? * Provide examples of new gTLDs. Consider adding the pop-up message that includes the list of new gTLDs strings used in the registrant survey. Q5: Should Registry Operators be required to publicly publish their reserved names lists? * This question can be included in the registrant survey, if not too late for implementation. AG/RN SSI – please advise. Q6: In the event a Registry has placed terms on its reserved names list and later decides to release them for registration, should the Registry be required to provide notice of the release to Trademark Owners who have recorded trademarks in the Trademark Clearinghouse (TMCH)? * Add “all” before “Trademark Owners” to better differentiate this question to the one after the next (no change to the original Q6) Q9: Has your company ever brought a Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy (UDRP), Uniform Rapid Suspension System (URS), or litigation proceeding against a domain name registered in a new generic top-level domain (gTLD)? If yes, approximately how many? * Replace “against” with “in respect of” – you bring a proceeding against someone, in respect of something. * Add links to URS and UDRP pages on icann.org: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/urs-2014-01-09-en, https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/help/dndr/udrp-en Q10: In approximately how many of the UDRP, URS, or litigation cases that you brought against a domain name in a new gTLD was the domain name at issue an exact match of your company’s trademark as recorded in the Trademark Clearinghouse? If you are uncertain of the number, you may skip this question. * Replace “against” with “in respect of” – you bring a proceeding against someone, in respect of something. Q11: In approximately how many of the UDRP, URS, or litigation cases that you brought against a domain name in a new gTLD was the domain name at issue a “creative misspelling” of your company’s trademark? If you are uncertain of the number, you may skip this question. * Replace “against” with “in respect of” – you bring a proceeding against someone, in respect of something. Q12: In approximately how many of the UDRP, URS, or litigation cases that you brought against a domain name in a new gTLD was the domain name at issue a combination of an exact match of your company’s trademark as recorded in the Trademark Clearinghouse and some other terms or characters? If you are uncertain of the number, you may skip this question. * Replace “against” with “in respect of” – you bring a proceeding against someone, in respect of something. Q13: Approximately how many of the UDRP, URS, or litigation cases that you brought against a domain name in a new gTLD were filed for other reasons? If you are uncertain of the number, you may skip this question. * Replace “against” with “in respect of” – you bring a proceeding against someone, in respect of something. Q14: Please indicate for what other reason(s) your company filed a Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy (UDRP), Uniform Rapid Suspension System (URS), or litigation proceeding against domain name applications. If you prefer to not respond, you may skip this question. * Replace “against” with “in respect of” – you bring a proceeding against someone, in respect of something. Q15: How did price affect your company’s decision to seek Sunrise Period registrations? * We should be asking about higher or lower price throughout the survey. Otherwise theoretically a respondent could have in mind that the lower the price the more likely they are to register and tick option 2, whereas someone else could be thinking about higher price and tick option 4 – when we get the results we won’t know what they were thinking. Please clarify whether we are asking higher or lower price in the survey and make it consistent for similar type of price related questions (e.g., In what new generic top-level domains (gTLDs), if any, did your company decide not to seek a Sunrise Period registration due to price?). Could we change the Likert scale to ask effects of “Higher Prices made it less likely my company would register a domain name” to “Lower Prices made it more likely my company would register a domain name” etc.? Q18: Would a 60-day Sunrise Period be preferable to a 30-day period? * Start date and end date sunrises are different and the surveys keep conflating them. We can still get feedback on whether 60 days is viewed as better than 30 days, but it does not take into account that the amount of notice you get is different and that that the time at which names are allocated is also different. Can AG provide suggestions to make the question clearer and not to conflate the start date/end date sunrises? Leave question as it is or change to “Would a longer Sunrise period be preferable to the current 30-day period?” Q19: In how many of these cases were you successful? If you are uncertain of the number, you may skip this question. * Add “Don’t know / Not sure” as an option.

1 0

Using Cookies to Allow Respondents Save Progress
by Ariel Liang Aug. 30, 2018

Aug. 30, 2018

Dear all, Analysis Group tested two options to allow the survey taker to save their progress and return to the survey later to complete. One is using the numeric passcode, and the other is using cookies. Beta testers have experienced with both options. The majority of them who provided feedback on this recommended using the cookies option. They believe that cookies would be preferable to remembering a one-off number as long as the cookies don’t capture personal or web-browsing information. Most people are used to cookies for various purposes like this. Writing numeric passcodes on the desk is not recommended way to keep information. Staff plan to advise Analysis Group to implement the cookies option for the registry, registrar, and TM owner surveys (unless we hear strong objection from the Data Sub Team). Analysis Group also informed us that they can include a note on the entry page of these surveys that says: "When you complete the survey, you may delete the cookie from your browser. This link provides directions for removing cookies from a variety of web browsers (link [pcworld.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.pcworld.com_articl…>). Please note that the directions provided will remove all cookies from your browser. This will remove your ability to revisit your survey answers and will also sign you out of other websites from which your browser has received cookies." Analysis Group did not recommend using either option for the registrant survey, as it is quite short and respondents should be able to complete the survey at one go. Best Regards, Mary, Julie, Ariel & Berry

2 1

TM Owner Survey - Beta Testers' Feedback - Review by COB Tue, 28 August
by Ariel Liang Aug. 30, 2018

Aug. 30, 2018

Dear Michael and all, Beta testers have reviewed the TM Owner survey and provided feedback. Test link: http://ICANNTrademarkHolders.cloudssi.com/login.html<http://icanntrademarkholders.cloudssi.com/login.html>. Please see below a summary of feedback/suggestion from the beta testers (technical issues reported by the testers have been forwarded to Analysis Group directly). Staff took screenshots of the questions that testers had feedback and created numbering for ease of reference. By COB Tuesday, 28 August, please be so kind to let us your input. Analysis Group will implement the changes accordingly. Thank you for your time and help! Best Regards, Mary, Julie, Ariel, and Berry === General Comment: * Do a global change of replacing “company” with “company/organization” in all survey questions and answer options in order to cover the non-profit, non-commercial entities Q1: Is your company a for-profit enterprise or not-for-profit? * Ask respondents to explain the nature of their company/organization’s entity. Respondents in developing countries may not know the binary. Q2: How many domain names matching any of your company’s trademarks have you applied to register during any new generic top-level domain (gTLD) Sunrise Period? * Why respondents are giving the option of saying “not sure/don’t know”? Q3: Has your company registered a domain name matching any of your company's trademarks in a new generic top-level domain (new gTLD)? * Provide examples of new gTLDs. Consider adding the pop-up message that includes the list of new gTLDs strings used in the registrant survey. Q4: In what new generic top-level domains (gTLDs), if any, did your company decide not to seek a Sunrise Period registration due to price? * Why the difference between “decide to seek” versus “decide not to seek”? For confidentiality reasons? Q5: Should Registry Operators be required to publicly publish their reserved names lists? * This question can be included in the registrant survey, if not too late for implementation. Q6: In the event a Registry has placed terms on its reserved names list and later decides to release them for registration, should the Registry be required to provide notice of the release to Trademark Owners who have recorded trademarks in the Trademark Clearinghouse (TMCH)? * Replace “terms” with “strings”? * Add “all” before “Trademark Owners” to better differentiate this question to the one after the next (see Q7) Q7: In the event a Registry has placed terms on its reserved names list and later decides to release them for registration, should the Registry be required to provide the owner of the released trademark that matches the domain name and is recorded in the TMCH with a priority opportunity to register the domain name upon its release? * Replace “terms” with “strings”? Q8: What was the outcome of your company’s actions? Please note that you may select multiple options. * Qualify “Complaint” in the answer option no.3? I.e., what Complaint and to whom it was made? Q9: Has your company ever brought a Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy (UDRP), Uniform Rapid Suspension System (URS), or litigation proceeding against a domain name registered in a new generic top-level domain (gTLD)? If yes, approximately how many? * Replace “against” with “in respect of” – you bring a proceeding against someone, in respect of something. * Add links to URS and UDRP pages on icann.org: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/urs-2014-01-09-en, https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/help/dndr/udrp-en Q10: In approximately how many of the UDRP, URS, or litigation cases that you brought against a domain name in a new gTLD was the domain name at issue an exact match of your company’s trademark as recorded in the Trademark Clearinghouse? If you are uncertain of the number, you may skip this question. * Replace “against” with “in respect of” – you bring a proceeding against someone, in respect of something. Q11: In approximately how many of the UDRP, URS, or litigation cases that you brought against a domain name in a new gTLD was the domain name at issue a “creative misspelling” of your company’s trademark? If you are uncertain of the number, you may skip this question. * Replace “against” with “in respect of” – you bring a proceeding against someone, in respect of something. Q12: In approximately how many of the UDRP, URS, or litigation cases that you brought against a domain name in a new gTLD was the domain name at issue a combination of an exact match of your company’s trademark as recorded in the Trademark Clearinghouse and some other terms or characters? If you are uncertain of the number, you may skip this question. * Replace “against” with “in respect of” – you bring a proceeding against someone, in respect of something. Q13: Approximately how many of the UDRP, URS, or litigation cases that you brought against a domain name in a new gTLD were filed for other reasons? If you are uncertain of the number, you may skip this question. * Replace “against” with “in respect of” – you bring a proceeding against someone, in respect of something. Q14: Please indicate for what other reason(s) your company filed a Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy (UDRP), Uniform Rapid Suspension System (URS), or litigation proceeding against domain name applications. If you prefer to not respond, you may skip this question. * Replace “against” with “in respect of” – you bring a proceeding against someone, in respect of something. Q15: In how many of these cases were you successful? If you are uncertain of the number, you may skip this question. * Add a “N/A” or “Don’t know/not sure” option? If so, this option should apply to other similar questions. Q16: In what new generic top-level domains (gTLDs), if any, did your company decide to seek a Sunrise Period registration? If you prefer to not respond, you may skip this question. * Add “(not legacy TLDs such as .com, .org, .net, or country code top level domains such as .us, .eu, .cn)” after “In what new generic top-level domains (gTLDs)” Q17: Why did your company miss the registration window end date? Please select all that apply. * Add the following answer option “the process of the registration was too long and we missed the window because of it” Q18: Would a 60-day Sunrise Period be preferable to a 30-day period? * Question is confusing. Start date sunrise is shorter (30 days), but it has first come first served rule, and end-date is longer (60 days), but the terms are different (highest bidder etc.)

2 2

Re: [Gnso-rpm-data] [Ext] RE: REMINDER: Registry Survey - Beta Testers' Feedback (Review by COB Monday)
by Ariel Liang Aug. 29, 2018

Aug. 29, 2018

Thank you very much Kristine! We appreciate your time and review! Best Regards, Mary, Julie, Ariel & Berry From: "Dorrain, Kristine" <dorraink(a)amazon.com> Date: Monday, August 27, 2018 at 6:38 PM To: Ariel Liang <ariel.liang(a)icann.org>, "gnso-rpm-data(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-data(a)icann.org> Subject: [Ext] RE: REMINDER: Registry Survey - Beta Testers' Feedback (Review by COB Monday) Hi all, I hadn’t checked this list after noon on Friday so I didn’t see this. I’ll look at it next. Apologies for the delay. Best, Kristine From: Gnso-rpm-data [mailto:gnso-rpm-data-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Ariel Liang Sent: Monday, August 27, 2018 3:14 PM To: gnso-rpm-data(a)icann.org Subject: [Gnso-rpm-data] REMINDER: Registry Survey - Beta Testers' Feedback (Review by COB Monday) Dear Kristine and all, Staff have not heard any feedback from the Sub Team in respect to beta testers’ input for the Registry survey. Since many of testers’ comments are substantive and about the questions themselves, we hesitate to move forward without the direction from the Sub Team. As noted below, you may provide your comments in response to the testers’ feedback directly on the Google Doc. Please only focus on the comments in GREEN on page 1-10. Screenshots of the questions are also included in the Google Doc. Thank you, Mary, Julie, Ariel & Berry From: Ariel Liang <ariel.liang(a)icann.org<mailto:ariel.liang@icann.org>> Date: Friday, August 24, 2018 at 6:30 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: Registry Survey - Beta Testers' Feedback (Review by COB Monday) Dear Data Sub Team members (and Kristine in particular), Beta testers have reviewed the registry surveys. Test link: http://icannregistryoperators.cloudssi.com/login.html [icannregistryoperators.cloudssi.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__icannregistryoperators.…> Since the beta testers’ feedback is quite extensive, and some comments are substantive, staff are sharing the Google Doc used by the beta testers for you to review their comments directly: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1_Ik_0_DD359Q8ewqkamqCi5i1t-M-k652SUYkcz… [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_docume…> Please note: * The bullet points in GREEN need Data Sub Team’s review/input. Please put your comment/input as new bullet points directly into the Google Doc (everyone can access via the “suggesting” mode). * The bullet points highlighted in yellow are mostly technical issues, and they have been forwarded to AG directly to review. * This survey has been programmed to use cookies to allow survey takers to return to their answers. While Lori suggested AG directing respondents in removing the survey cookie due to privacy concerns, AG did not implement it as the directions will differ depending on the respondent's computer/internet browser set-up and may be a bit technical. However, AG could add a note at the beginning and/or end of the survey with a link to a website that explains how to delete all cookies. In that implementation, AG would explain that deleting all cookies would remove their ability to re-visit their survey answers and also could sign them out of other websites that have sent them cookies. Please let us know if you have any opinion about adding that note to the survey introduction and/or to the survey exit pages. * Due to the design of the survey and the platform used, a tester (including staff) is unable to see ALL questions due to the choices made in certain questions. Hence, the feedback is not all comprehensive. Staff are checking with AG and see whether there is a need to re-do the testing, or the feedback received now is sufficient. * David McAuley, one of the beta testers, may include feedback in the Google Doc by tomorrow (Saturday). Staff don’t expect further comments from other beta testers. By COB Monday, 27 August, please be so kind to write in the Google Doc your input to beta testers’ feedback. Analysis Group will implement the changes accordingly. Thank you for your time and help! Best Regards, Mary, Julie, Ariel, and Berry

3 6

Re: [Gnso-rpm-data] [Ext] RE: TM Owner Survey - Beta Testers' Feedback - Review by COB Tue, 28 August
by Ariel Liang Aug. 28, 2018

Aug. 28, 2018

Dear Susan and all, Thank you, Susan, for going through the testers’ feedback in detail and reporting the two additional issues. We will wait a bit for Michael’s feedback before passing the Sub Team’s input to Analysis Group. Staff also corrected the screengrab for Q2 (please find attached). Thanks for pointing it out, Susan! Best Regards, Mary, Julie, Ariel & Berry From: Susan Payne <susan.payne(a)valideus.com> Date: Tuesday, August 28, 2018 at 8:13 AM To: Ariel Liang <ariel.liang(a)icann.org>, "gnso-rpm-data(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-data(a)icann.org> Subject: [Ext] RE: TM Owner Survey - Beta Testers' Feedback - Review by COB Tue, 28 August Hi all, although will defer to Michael on this, for what it’s worth I have reviewed the feedback and made some comments inline. I also have a couple of comments of my own that I noticed as I was using the test link. In the introductory questions, the question: “Approximately how many of your company’s trademarks have been recorded with the TMCH?”, if the respondent selects “don’t know/not sure” they get the message that since they haven’t recorded any marks in the TMCH the survey terminates – and I then couldn’t go back to change my answer. Is that what we intend? It seems like someone might not be the person in the company who handled the TMCH recordal and might not want to guess how many marks they recorded, but still could have useful insight on some of the later questions because they have been the one making decisions about registering domains. On the question “How did price affect your company’s decision to seek Sunrise Period registrations?” I thought we were making a change so that it’s clear if we are asking about higher or lower price throughout. Otherwise theoretically a respondent could have in mind that the lower the price the more likely they are to register and tick option 2, whereas someone else could be thinking about higher price and tick option 4 – when we get the results we won’t know what they were thinking. Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy | Valideus Ltd E: susan.payne(a)valideus.com<mailto:susan.payne@valideus.com> D: +44 20 7421 8255 T: +44 20 7421 8299 M: +44 7971 661175 From: Gnso-rpm-data [mailto:gnso-rpm-data-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Ariel Liang Sent: 27 August 2018 23:45 To: gnso-rpm-data(a)icann.org Subject: [Gnso-rpm-data] TM Owner Survey - Beta Testers' Feedback - Review by COB Tue, 28 August Dear Michael and all, Beta testers have reviewed the TM Owner survey and provided feedback. Test link: http://ICANNTrademarkHolders.cloudssi.com/login.html [icanntrademarkholders.cloudssi.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__icanntrademarkholders.c…>. Please see below a summary of feedback/suggestion from the beta testers (technical issues reported by the testers have been forwarded to Analysis Group directly). Staff took screenshots of the questions that testers had feedback and created numbering for ease of reference. By COB Tuesday, 28 August, please be so kind to let us your input. Analysis Group will implement the changes accordingly. Thank you for your time and help! Best Regards, Mary, Julie, Ariel, and Berry === General Comment: * Do a global change of replacing “company” with “company/organization” in all survey questions and answer options in order to cover the non-profit, non-commercial entities [SP – sounds fine to me and reflects changes made in other surveys] Q1: Is your company a for-profit enterprise or not-for-profit? * Ask respondents to explain the nature of their company/organization’s entity. Respondents in developing countries may not know the binary. [SP – I honestly don’t think this is a big issue. I don’t think we intend this question to use these terms as they exist in US company law. Even if you are a non-US entity I think you can work out whether you’re a commercial organization or one where profit is not the primary driver. There’s also a “don’t know” option and “prefer not to respond”] Q2: Approximately How many domain names matching any of your company’s trademarks have you applied to register during any new generic top-level domain (gTLD) Sunrise Period? * Why respondents are giving the option of saying “not sure/don’t know”? [SP – the screen grab Q2 seems to be for a different question. If they tick “not sure/don’t know” does the survey terminate? I don’t think it should since there are still Claims questions. But in any event I think respondents should be encouraged to give an approximate in all of the questions where they are asked about volume – we don’t want the questioning to terminate because someone cannot remember the precise number.] Q3: Has your company registered a domain name matching any of your company's trademarks in a new generic top-level domain (new gTLD)? * Provide examples of new gTLDs. Consider adding the pop-up message that includes the list of new gTLDs strings used in the registrant survey. [SP – seems a sensible change based on what we did for registrants. But this question is called “Sunrise Participation” and yet the question does not actually refer to registration during sunrise. Assume that is deliberate (ie because we want brand owner registrants to answer even if they registered their names after the sunrise, so that we can get their reasoning behind that decision)] Q4: In what new generic top-level domains (gTLDs), if any, did your company decide not to seek a Sunrise Period registration due to price? * Why the difference between “decide to seek” versus “decide not to seek”? For confidentiality reasons? [SP – see my comment above about price above. Regarding the comment from the tester, this is because we’re interested in knowing where price was a discouragement rather than the reverse.] Q5: Should Registry Operators be required to publicly publish their reserved names lists? * This question can be included in the registrant survey, if not too late for implementation. Q6: In the event a Registry has placed terms on its reserved names list and later decides to release them for registration, should the Registry be required to provide notice of the release to Trademark Owners who have recorded trademarks in the Trademark Clearinghouse (TMCH)? * Replace “terms” with “strings”? [SP – I don’t feel too strongly, but think that “terms” is a more generally-understood term, strings is more of an industry-specific term which a respondent might not be familiar with.] * Add “all” before “Trademark Owners” to better differentiate this question to the one after the next (see Q7) [SP – I don’t feel strongly] Q7: In the event a Registry has placed terms on its reserved names list and later decides to release them for registration, should the Registry be required to provide the owner of the released trademark that matches the domain name and is recorded in the TMCH with a priority opportunity to register the domain name upon its release? * Replace “terms” with “strings”? [SP – same comment as above] Q8: What was the outcome of your company’s actions? Please note that you may select multiple options. * Qualify “Complaint” in the answer option no.3? I.e., what Complaint and to whom it was made? [SP – I think this is fine. This refers back to the previous Q where UDRP and URS Complaints were an option] Q9: Has your company ever brought a Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy (UDRP), Uniform Rapid Suspension System (URS), or litigation proceeding against a domain name registered in a new generic top-level domain (gTLD)? If yes, approximately how many? * Replace “against” with “in respect of” – you bring a proceeding against someone, in respect of something. [SP – agree] * Add links to URS and UDRP pages on icann.org: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/urs-2014-01-09-en [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_resource…>, https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/help/dndr/udrp-en [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_resource…> [SP – fine] Q10: In approximately how many of the UDRP, URS, or litigation cases that you brought against a domain name in a new gTLD was the domain name at issue an exact match of your company’s trademark as recorded in the Trademark Clearinghouse? If you are uncertain of the number, you may skip this question. * Replace “against” with “in respect of” – you bring a proceeding against someone, in respect of something. [SP – agree] Q11: In approximately how many of the UDRP, URS, or litigation cases that you brought against a domain name in a new gTLD was the domain name at issue a “creative misspelling” of your company’s trademark? If you are uncertain of the number, you may skip this question. * Replace “against” with “in respect of” – you bring a proceeding against someone, in respect of something. [SP – agree] Q12: In approximately how many of the UDRP, URS, or litigation cases that you brought against a domain name in a new gTLD was the domain name at issue a combination of an exact match of your company’s trademark as recorded in the Trademark Clearinghouse and some other terms or characters? If you are uncertain of the number, you may skip this question. * Replace “against” with “in respect of” – you bring a proceeding against someone, in respect of something. [SP – agree] Q13: Approximately how many of the UDRP, URS, or litigation cases that you brought against a domain name in a new gTLD were filed for other reasons? If you are uncertain of the number, you may skip this question. * Replace “against” with “in respect of” – you bring a proceeding against someone, in respect of something. [SP – agree] Q14: Please indicate for what other reason(s) your company filed a Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy (UDRP), Uniform Rapid Suspension System (URS), or litigation proceeding against domain name applications. If you prefer to not respond, you may skip this question. * Replace “against” with “in respect of” – you bring a proceeding against someone, in respect of something. [SP – agree] Q15: In how many of these cases were you successful? If you are uncertain of the number, you may skip this question. * Add a “N/A” or “Don’t know/not sure” option? If so, this option should apply to other similar questions. [SP – isn’t skipping it sufficient?] Q16: In what new generic top-level domains (gTLDs), if any, did your company decide to seek a Sunrise Period registration? If you prefer to not respond, you may skip this question. * Add “(not legacy TLDs such as .com, .org, .net, or country code top level domains such as .us, .eu, .cn)” after “In what new generic top-level domains (gTLDs)” [SP – haven’t we already told them what a new gTLD is – in the same way that was done for the registrant survey? If so, we should and then this clarification is not necessary] Q17: Why did your company miss the registration window end date? Please select all that apply. * Add the following answer option “the process of the registration was too long and we missed the window because of it” [SP – this seems like a particular experience someone had, but I can’t believe it was a regular occurrence since most registrations are practically instantaneous. I think the “other” option is sufficient] Q18: Would a 60-day Sunrise Period be preferable to a 30-day period? * Question is confusing. Start date sunrise is shorter (30 days), but it has first come first served rule, and end-date is longer (60 days), but the terms are different (highest bidder etc.) [SP – this feels like déjà vu. I’ve been saying throughout this process that the start date and end date sunrises are different and the surveys keep conflating them. I think we can still get feedback on whether 60 days is viewed as better than 30 days, but it does not take into account that the amount of notice you get is different and that that the time at which names are allocated is also different]

2 2

Finalized Registrar Survey - Review by COB Today
by Ariel Liang Aug. 27, 2018

Aug. 27, 2018

Dear Data Sub Team members, Please find the finalized Registrar survey here, incorporating the feedback from the beta testers reviewed by the Sub Team: http://ICANNregistrar.cloudssi.com/login.html By COB today (Monday, 27 August), please let staff know if there is any issue. If no substantive changes, staff will let Analysis Group proceed with preparing the launch of this survey. Thank you! Mary, Julie, Ariel & Berry From: Ariel Liang <ariel.liang(a)icann.org> Date: Thursday, August 23, 2018 at 9:37 PM To: Susan Payne <susan.payne(a)valideus.com>, "gnso-rpm-data(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-data(a)icann.org> Subject: Re: [Ext] RE: Beta Testers' Feedback on Registrar Survey - Review by COB Thursday, 23 Aug Dear Susan and all, Not seeing further comment by COB today, staff have forward beta testers’ suggestions to the Registrar survey, incorporating Susan’s input, to Analysis Group for implementation. For your record, please see below the feedback we forwarded to Analysis Group. Thank you for your time and review! Best Regards, Mary, Julie, Ariel & Berry == General Comment * Replace “registrar” with “Registrar” and replace “registry” with “Registry” (capital R) in questions throughout the survey. Q1: Before the beginning of a start date Sunrise period, on average, how much notice do you receive? If you have not encountered a start date Sunrise period, please select “N/A.” * Add the definition of “Start Date Sunrise” and “End Date Sunrise” to provide context to the question: * Start Date Sunrise: Registry must provide the Sunrise registration service for a minimum of 30 calendar days prior to General Registration and must provide 30 calendar days’ minimum notice prior to the start of the Sunrise period. Trademark-related Domains are registered on first-come, first-served (or other) basis. * End Date Sunrise: Registry has no advance notice obligation to trademark owners but must provide the Sunrise registration service for a minimum of 60 calendar days prior to General Registration, and must not use a time-based allocation methods (e.g., first come, first served). At the end of the period, requested names are allocated by the Registry and a process such as an auction is used if there is more than one claim for the same domain. Q2: How long do you think the ideal mandatory length for the Sunrise period should be (in days)? * Add an open text field to ask survey takers to briefly provide rationales to their selections (if no additional cost) Q3: What impact does the current minimum 30-day Sunrise period have on the following outcomes (relative to having no Sunrise period), respectively? Please select all that apply. * Change all “Registry Operators” to “Registrars” in the first row Q4: What impact do you think a period of 60 days would have on the following outcomes (relative to having no Sunrise period), respectively? Please select all that apply. * Change all “Registry Operators” to “Registrars” in the first row Q5: Do registries provide you with a list of reserved names? * Add “regularly” before “provide” in the question Q6: On average, how much notice do you receive of reserved names, in advance of a new generic top-level domain (gTLD) launch? * Revise the question: To the extent that you receive details of reserved names in advance of a new generic top-level domain (gTLD) launch, how much notice do you receive on average? Q7: How long should the Claims period be? * Revise the question: Based on your experience of the Trademark Claims process, how long should the Claims period be? Q8: When was the Claims Notice submitted to the customers? * Revise the question: In the case of such pre-orders, when was the Claims Notice submitted to the customer? End of survey * We appreciate your time and willingness to share your experiences and opinions. From: Susan Payne <susan.payne(a)valideus.com> Date: Thursday, August 23, 2018 at 5:55 AM To: Ariel Liang <ariel.liang(a)icann.org>, "gnso-rpm-data(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-data(a)icann.org> Subject: [Ext] RE: Beta Testers' Feedback on Registrar Survey - Review by COB Thursday, 23 Aug Thanks Ariel. All, see my comments below Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy | Valideus Ltd E: susan.payne(a)valideus.com<mailto:susan.payne@valideus.com> D: +44 20 7421 8255 T: +44 20 7421 8299 M: +44 7971 661175 Valideus August Bank Holiday Opening Hours The Valideus office will be closed for a UK public holiday on Monday 27 August 2018, reopening on Tuesday 28 August 2018. From: Gnso-rpm-data [mailto:gnso-rpm-data-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Ariel Liang Sent: 23 August 2018 00:05 To: gnso-rpm-data(a)icann.org Subject: [Gnso-rpm-data] Beta Testers' Feedback on Registrar Survey - Review by COB Thursday, 23 Aug Dear Data Sub Team members (and Susan in particular), Beta testers have reviewed the Registrar survey and provided feedback by COB on Wednesday 22 August. Test link: http://ICANNregistrar.cloudssi.com/login.html [icannregistrar.cloudssi.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__ICANNregistrar.cloudssi…>. Please see below a summary of feedback/suggestion from the beta testers (technical issues reported by the testers have been forwarded to Analysis Group directly). Since there is no question numbering or individual URL for each question, staff took screenshots of the questions that testers had feedback and created numbering for ease of reference. Furthermore, the Registrar survey is programed to use numeric user passwords to allow survey takers to save their responses & return to the survey to complete. Please read the instruction on the login page and report issues, if any. You are welcome to go through the survey itself and let staff know any additional issues you have encountered. By COB Thursday, 23 August, please be so kind to let us your input. Analysis Group will implement the changes accordingly. Thank you for your time and help! Best Regards, Mary, Julie, Ariel, and Berry == General Comment * Replace “registrar” with “Registrar” and replace “registry” with “Registry” (capital R) in questions throughout the survey. [Susan – no objection] Q1: Before the beginning of a start date Sunrise period, on average, how much notice do you receive? If you have not encountered a start date Sunrise period, please select “N/A.” * Add the definition of “Start Date Sunrise” and “End Date Sunrise” to provide context to the question: [Susan – good idea, see suggested edits] * Start Date Sunrise: Registry must provide the Sunrise registration service for a minimum of 30 calendar days prior to General Registration and must provide 30 calendar days’ minimum notice prior to the start of the Sunrise period. Trademark-related Domains are registered on first-come, first-served (or other) basis. * End Date Sunrise: Registry has no advance notice obligation to trademark owners but must provide the Sunrise registration service for a minimum of 60 calendar days prior to General Registration, and must not use a time-based allocation methods (e.g., first come, first served). At the end of the period, requested names are allocated by the Registry and a process such as an auction is used auctions are conducted if there is more than one claim for the same domain. Q2: How long do you think the ideal mandatory length for the Sunrise period should be (in days)? * Add an open text field to ask survey takers to briefly provide rationales to their selections [Susan – no objection, seems like it could be useful, but it presumably adds to the complexity (and cost?) of reviewing the responses] Q3: What impact does the current minimum 30-day Sunrise period have on the following outcomes (relative to having no Sunrise period), respectively? Please select all that apply. * Change all “Registry Operators” to “Registrars” in the first row Q4: What impact do you think a period of 60 days would have on the following outcomes (relative to having no Sunrise period), respectively? Please select all that apply. * Change all “Registry Operators” to “Registrars” in the first row [Susan – agreed. It looks as though this question was copied over from the Ry survey and not amended] Q5: Do registries provide you with a list of reserved names? * Add “regularly” before “provide” in the question (to reflect that reserved names list is a dynamic set of data) [Susan – no objection. In theory we might get someone who was sent the list initially but never thereafter considering this to be a “no” but I don’t think that’s necessarily a problem as we’re just trying to get an idea of how aware registrars are of what is reserved before they attempt to register a name] Q6: To the extent that you receive details of reserved names On average, how much notice do you receive of reserved names, in advance of a new generic top-level domain (gTLD) launch, on average how much notice do you receive? * A loaded question – Registries have no obligations to notify any parties about changes to reserved names list [Susan – maybe edit as above] Q7: Based on your experience of the Trademark Claims process, how long should the Claims period be? * Add “In this hypothetical situation” at the beginning of the question [Susan: I don’t think so. In what hypothetical situation? This doesn’t relate to the previous question. Maybe we should edit as suggested] Q8: In the case of such pre-orders, when was the Claims Notice submitted to the customer? [Susan: since this comes up on a separate page, in isolation, respondents may not realise we’re asking about pre-orders so edit to make clear] * Change “Notice” to “Notices” [Susan: I don’t think this is really necessary but don’t have strong feelings either way] * Add clarification, e.g., before Sunrise, after Sunrise, etc. [Susan – I think we made this an open field box deliberately] Q9: Do you encounter challenges when sending Claims Notices for pre-order names? * Add a follow up question, e.g., “What are those challenges?”, “How difficult are those challenges”? [Susan: if they tick yes then they get asked what challenges so I think this is covered] End of survey * We appreciate your time and willingness to share your experiences and opinions. [Susan: yes]

1 1

REMINDER: Registry Survey - Beta Testers' Feedback (Review by COB Monday)
by Ariel Liang Aug. 27, 2018

Aug. 27, 2018

Dear Kristine and all, Staff have not heard any feedback from the Sub Team in respect to beta testers’ input for the Registry survey. Since many of testers’ comments are substantive and about the questions themselves, we hesitate to move forward without the direction from the Sub Team. As noted below, you may provide your comments in response to the testers’ feedback directly on the Google Doc. Please only focus on the comments in GREEN on page 1-10. Screenshots of the questions are also included in the Google Doc. Thank you, Mary, Julie, Ariel & Berry From: Ariel Liang <ariel.liang(a)icann.org> Date: Friday, August 24, 2018 at 6:30 PM To: "gnso-rpm-data(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-data(a)icann.org> Subject: Registry Survey - Beta Testers' Feedback (Review by COB Monday) Dear Data Sub Team members (and Kristine in particular), Beta testers have reviewed the registry surveys. Test link: http://icannregistryoperators.cloudssi.com/login.html Since the beta testers’ feedback is quite extensive, and some comments are substantive, staff are sharing the Google Doc used by the beta testers for you to review their comments directly: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1_Ik_0_DD359Q8ewqkamqCi5i1t-M-k652SUYkcz… Please note: * The bullet points in GREEN need Data Sub Team’s review/input. Please put your comment/input as new bullet points directly into the Google Doc (everyone can access via the “suggesting” mode). * The bullet points highlighted in yellow are mostly technical issues, and they have been forwarded to AG directly to review. * This survey has been programmed to use cookies to allow survey takers to return to their answers. While Lori suggested AG directing respondents in removing the survey cookie due to privacy concerns, AG did not implement it as the directions will differ depending on the respondent's computer/internet browser set-up and may be a bit technical. However, AG could add a note at the beginning and/or end of the survey with a link to a website that explains how to delete all cookies. In that implementation, AG would explain that deleting all cookies would remove their ability to re-visit their survey answers and also could sign them out of other websites that have sent them cookies. Please let us know if you have any opinion about adding that note to the survey introduction and/or to the survey exit pages. * Due to the design of the survey and the platform used, a tester (including staff) is unable to see ALL questions due to the choices made in certain questions. Hence, the feedback is not all comprehensive. Staff are checking with AG and see whether there is a need to re-do the testing, or the feedback received now is sufficient. * David McAuley, one of the beta testers, may include feedback in the Google Doc by tomorrow (Saturday). Staff don’t expect further comments from other beta testers. By COB Monday, 27 August, please be so kind to write in the Google Doc your input to beta testers’ feedback. Analysis Group will implement the changes accordingly. Thank you for your time and help! Best Regards, Mary, Julie, Ariel, and Berry

2 1

Registry Survey - Beta Testers' Feedback (Review by COB Monday)
by Ariel Liang Aug. 24, 2018

Aug. 24, 2018

Dear Data Sub Team members (and Kristine in particular), Beta testers have reviewed the actual/potential registrant surveys. Test link: http://icannregistryoperators.cloudssi.com/login.html Since the beta testers’ feedback is quite extensive, and some comments are substantive, staff are sharing the Google Doc used by the beta testers for you to review their comments directly: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1_Ik_0_DD359Q8ewqkamqCi5i1t-M-k652SUYkcz… Please note: * The bullet points in GREEN need Data Sub Team’s review/input. Please put your comment/input as new bullet points directly into the Google Doc (everyone can access via the “suggesting” mode). * The bullet points highlighted in yellow are mostly technical issues, and they have been forwarded to AG directly to review. * This survey has been programmed to use cookies to allow survey takers to return to their answers. While Lori suggested AG directing respondents in removing the survey cookie due to privacy concerns, AG did not implement it as the directions will differ depending on the respondent's computer/internet browser set-up and may be a bit technical. However, AG could add a note at the beginning and/or end of the survey with a link to a website that explains how to delete all cookies. In that implementation, AG would explain that deleting all cookies would remove their ability to re-visit their survey answers and also could sign them out of other websites that have sent them cookies. Please let us know if you have any opinion about adding that note to the survey introduction and/or to the survey exit pages. * Due to the design of the survey and the platform used, a tester (including staff) is unable to see ALL questions due to the choices made in certain questions. Hence, the feedback is not all comprehensive. Staff are checking with AG and see whether there is a need to re-do the testing, or the feedback received now is sufficient. * David McAuley, one of the beta testers, may include feedback in the Google Doc by tomorrow (Saturday). Staff don’t expect further comments from other beta testers. By COB Monday, 27 August, please be so kind to write in the Google Doc your input to beta testers’ feedback. Analysis Group will implement the changes accordingly. Thank you for your time and help! Best Regards, Mary, Julie, Ariel, and Berry

1 1

Re: [Gnso-rpm-data] [Ext] RE: Beta Testers' Feedback on Registrar Survey - Review by COB Thursday, 23 Aug
by Ariel Liang Aug. 24, 2018

Aug. 24, 2018

Dear Susan and all, Not seeing further comment by COB today, staff have forward beta testers’ suggestions to the Registrar survey, incorporating Susan’s input, to Analysis Group for implementation. For your record, please see below the feedback we forwarded to Analysis Group. Thank you for your time and review! Best Regards, Mary, Julie, Ariel & Berry == General Comment * Replace “registrar” with “Registrar” and replace “registry” with “Registry” (capital R) in questions throughout the survey. Q1: Before the beginning of a start date Sunrise period, on average, how much notice do you receive? If you have not encountered a start date Sunrise period, please select “N/A.” * Add the definition of “Start Date Sunrise” and “End Date Sunrise” to provide context to the question: * Start Date Sunrise: Registry must provide the Sunrise registration service for a minimum of 30 calendar days prior to General Registration and must provide 30 calendar days’ minimum notice prior to the start of the Sunrise period. Trademark-related Domains are registered on first-come, first-served (or other) basis. * End Date Sunrise: Registry has no advance notice obligation to trademark owners but must provide the Sunrise registration service for a minimum of 60 calendar days prior to General Registration, and must not use a time-based allocation methods (e.g., first come, first served). At the end of the period, requested names are allocated by the Registry and a process such as an auction is used if there is more than one claim for the same domain. Q2: How long do you think the ideal mandatory length for the Sunrise period should be (in days)? * Add an open text field to ask survey takers to briefly provide rationales to their selections (if no additional cost) Q3: What impact does the current minimum 30-day Sunrise period have on the following outcomes (relative to having no Sunrise period), respectively? Please select all that apply. * Change all “Registry Operators” to “Registrars” in the first row Q4: What impact do you think a period of 60 days would have on the following outcomes (relative to having no Sunrise period), respectively? Please select all that apply. * Change all “Registry Operators” to “Registrars” in the first row Q5: Do registries provide you with a list of reserved names? * Add “regularly” before “provide” in the question Q6: On average, how much notice do you receive of reserved names, in advance of a new generic top-level domain (gTLD) launch? * Revise the question: To the extent that you receive details of reserved names in advance of a new generic top-level domain (gTLD) launch, how much notice do you receive on average? Q7: How long should the Claims period be? * Revise the question: Based on your experience of the Trademark Claims process, how long should the Claims period be? Q8: When was the Claims Notice submitted to the customers? * Revise the question: In the case of such pre-orders, when was the Claims Notice submitted to the customer? End of survey * We appreciate your time and willingness to share your experiences and opinions. From: Susan Payne <susan.payne(a)valideus.com> Date: Thursday, August 23, 2018 at 5:55 AM To: Ariel Liang <ariel.liang(a)icann.org>, "gnso-rpm-data(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-data(a)icann.org> Subject: [Ext] RE: Beta Testers' Feedback on Registrar Survey - Review by COB Thursday, 23 Aug Thanks Ariel. All, see my comments below Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy | Valideus Ltd E: susan.payne(a)valideus.com<mailto:susan.payne@valideus.com> D: +44 20 7421 8255 T: +44 20 7421 8299 M: +44 7971 661175 Valideus August Bank Holiday Opening Hours The Valideus office will be closed for a UK public holiday on Monday 27 August 2018, reopening on Tuesday 28 August 2018. From: Gnso-rpm-data [mailto:gnso-rpm-data-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Ariel Liang Sent: 23 August 2018 00:05 To: gnso-rpm-data(a)icann.org Subject: [Gnso-rpm-data] Beta Testers' Feedback on Registrar Survey - Review by COB Thursday, 23 Aug Dear Data Sub Team members (and Susan in particular), Beta testers have reviewed the Registrar survey and provided feedback by COB on Wednesday 22 August. Test link: http://ICANNregistrar.cloudssi.com/login.html [icannregistrar.cloudssi.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__ICANNregistrar.cloudssi…>. Please see below a summary of feedback/suggestion from the beta testers (technical issues reported by the testers have been forwarded to Analysis Group directly). Since there is no question numbering or individual URL for each question, staff took screenshots of the questions that testers had feedback and created numbering for ease of reference. Furthermore, the Registrar survey is programed to use numeric user passwords to allow survey takers to save their responses & return to the survey to complete. Please read the instruction on the login page and report issues, if any. You are welcome to go through the survey itself and let staff know any additional issues you have encountered. By COB Thursday, 23 August, please be so kind to let us your input. Analysis Group will implement the changes accordingly. Thank you for your time and help! Best Regards, Mary, Julie, Ariel, and Berry == General Comment * Replace “registrar” with “Registrar” and replace “registry” with “Registry” (capital R) in questions throughout the survey. [Susan – no objection] Q1: Before the beginning of a start date Sunrise period, on average, how much notice do you receive? If you have not encountered a start date Sunrise period, please select “N/A.” * Add the definition of “Start Date Sunrise” and “End Date Sunrise” to provide context to the question: [Susan – good idea, see suggested edits] * Start Date Sunrise: Registry must provide the Sunrise registration service for a minimum of 30 calendar days prior to General Registration and must provide 30 calendar days’ minimum notice prior to the start of the Sunrise period. Trademark-related Domains are registered on first-come, first-served (or other) basis. * End Date Sunrise: Registry has no advance notice obligation to trademark owners but must provide the Sunrise registration service for a minimum of 60 calendar days prior to General Registration, and must not use a time-based allocation methods (e.g., first come, first served). At the end of the period, requested names are allocated by the Registry and a process such as an auction is used auctions are conducted if there is more than one claim for the same domain. Q2: How long do you think the ideal mandatory length for the Sunrise period should be (in days)? * Add an open text field to ask survey takers to briefly provide rationales to their selections [Susan – no objection, seems like it could be useful, but it presumably adds to the complexity (and cost?) of reviewing the responses] Q3: What impact does the current minimum 30-day Sunrise period have on the following outcomes (relative to having no Sunrise period), respectively? Please select all that apply. * Change all “Registry Operators” to “Registrars” in the first row Q4: What impact do you think a period of 60 days would have on the following outcomes (relative to having no Sunrise period), respectively? Please select all that apply. * Change all “Registry Operators” to “Registrars” in the first row [Susan – agreed. It looks as though this question was copied over from the Ry survey and not amended] Q5: Do registries provide you with a list of reserved names? * Add “regularly” before “provide” in the question (to reflect that reserved names list is a dynamic set of data) [Susan – no objection. In theory we might get someone who was sent the list initially but never thereafter considering this to be a “no” but I don’t think that’s necessarily a problem as we’re just trying to get an idea of how aware registrars are of what is reserved before they attempt to register a name] Q6: To the extent that you receive details of reserved names On average, how much notice do you receive of reserved names, in advance of a new generic top-level domain (gTLD) launch, on average how much notice do you receive? * A loaded question – Registries have no obligations to notify any parties about changes to reserved names list [Susan – maybe edit as above] Q7: Based on your experience of the Trademark Claims process, how long should the Claims period be? * Add “In this hypothetical situation” at the beginning of the question [Susan: I don’t think so. In what hypothetical situation? This doesn’t relate to the previous question. Maybe we should edit as suggested] Q8: In the case of such pre-orders, when was the Claims Notice submitted to the customer? [Susan: since this comes up on a separate page, in isolation, respondents may not realise we’re asking about pre-orders so edit to make clear] * Change “Notice” to “Notices” [Susan: I don’t think this is really necessary but don’t have strong feelings either way] * Add clarification, e.g., before Sunrise, after Sunrise, etc. [Susan – I think we made this an open field box deliberately] Q9: Do you encounter challenges when sending Claims Notices for pre-order names? * Add a follow up question, e.g., “What are those challenges?”, “How difficult are those challenges”? [Susan: if they tick yes then they get asked what challenges so I think this is covered] End of survey * We appreciate your time and willingness to share your experiences and opinions. [Susan: yes]

1 0

Re: [Gnso-rpm-data] [Ext] RE: Beta Testers' Feedback on Registrar Survey - Review by COB Thursday, 23 Aug
by Ariel Liang Aug. 23, 2018

Aug. 23, 2018

Hello Susan, Thank you very much for the comments, suggestions, and edits! We will wait till COB today to forward them to Analysis Group, in case others in the Sub Team have additional input. Thank you again! Mary, Julie, Ariel & Berry From: Susan Payne <susan.payne(a)valideus.com> Date: Thursday, August 23, 2018 at 5:55 AM To: Ariel Liang <ariel.liang(a)icann.org>, "gnso-rpm-data(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-data(a)icann.org> Subject: [Ext] RE: Beta Testers' Feedback on Registrar Survey - Review by COB Thursday, 23 Aug Thanks Ariel. All, see my comments below Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy | Valideus Ltd E: susan.payne(a)valideus.com<mailto:susan.payne@valideus.com> D: +44 20 7421 8255 T: +44 20 7421 8299 M: +44 7971 661175 Valideus August Bank Holiday Opening Hours The Valideus office will be closed for a UK public holiday on Monday 27 August 2018, reopening on Tuesday 28 August 2018. From: Gnso-rpm-data [mailto:gnso-rpm-data-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Ariel Liang Sent: 23 August 2018 00:05 To: gnso-rpm-data(a)icann.org Subject: [Gnso-rpm-data] Beta Testers' Feedback on Registrar Survey - Review by COB Thursday, 23 Aug Dear Data Sub Team members (and Susan in particular), Beta testers have reviewed the Registrar survey and provided feedback by COB on Wednesday 22 August. Test link: http://ICANNregistrar.cloudssi.com/login.html [icannregistrar.cloudssi.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__ICANNregistrar.cloudssi…>. Please see below a summary of feedback/suggestion from the beta testers (technical issues reported by the testers have been forwarded to Analysis Group directly). Since there is no question numbering or individual URL for each question, staff took screenshots of the questions that testers had feedback and created numbering for ease of reference. Furthermore, the Registrar survey is programed to use numeric user passwords to allow survey takers to save their responses & return to the survey to complete. Please read the instruction on the login page and report issues, if any. You are welcome to go through the survey itself and let staff know any additional issues you have encountered. By COB Thursday, 23 August, please be so kind to let us your input. Analysis Group will implement the changes accordingly. Thank you for your time and help! Best Regards, Mary, Julie, Ariel, and Berry == General Comment * Replace “registrar” with “Registrar” and replace “registry” with “Registry” (capital R) in questions throughout the survey. [Susan – no objection] Q1: Before the beginning of a start date Sunrise period, on average, how much notice do you receive? If you have not encountered a start date Sunrise period, please select “N/A.” * Add the definition of “Start Date Sunrise” and “End Date Sunrise” to provide context to the question: [Susan – good idea, see suggested edits] * Start Date Sunrise: Registry must provide the Sunrise registration service for a minimum of 30 calendar days prior to General Registration and must provide 30 calendar days’ minimum notice prior to the start of the Sunrise period. Trademark-related Domains are registered on first-come, first-served (or other) basis. * End Date Sunrise: Registry has no advance notice obligation to trademark owners but must provide the Sunrise registration service for a minimum of 60 calendar days prior to General Registration, and must not use a time-based allocation methods (e.g., first come, first served). At the end of the period, requested names are allocated by the Registry and a process such as an auction is used auctions are conducted if there is more than one claim for the same domain. Q2: How long do you think the ideal mandatory length for the Sunrise period should be (in days)? * Add an open text field to ask survey takers to briefly provide rationales to their selections [Susan – no objection, seems like it could be useful, but it presumably adds to the complexity (and cost?) of reviewing the responses] Q3: What impact does the current minimum 30-day Sunrise period have on the following outcomes (relative to having no Sunrise period), respectively? Please select all that apply. * Change all “Registry Operators” to “Registrars” in the first row Q4: What impact do you think a period of 60 days would have on the following outcomes (relative to having no Sunrise period), respectively? Please select all that apply. * Change all “Registry Operators” to “Registrars” in the first row [Susan – agreed. It looks as though this question was copied over from the Ry survey and not amended] Q5: Do registries provide you with a list of reserved names? * Add “regularly” before “provide” in the question (to reflect that reserved names list is a dynamic set of data) [Susan – no objection. In theory we might get someone who was sent the list initially but never thereafter considering this to be a “no” but I don’t think that’s necessarily a problem as we’re just trying to get an idea of how aware registrars are of what is reserved before they attempt to register a name] Q6: To the extent that you receive details of reserved names On average, how much notice do you receive of reserved names, in advance of a new generic top-level domain (gTLD) launch, on average how much notice do you receive? * A loaded question – Registries have no obligations to notify any parties about changes to reserved names list [Susan – maybe edit as above] Q7: Based on your experience of the Trademark Claims process, how long should the Claims period be? * Add “In this hypothetical situation” at the beginning of the question [Susan: I don’t think so. In what hypothetical situation? This doesn’t relate to the previous question. Maybe we should edit as suggested] Q8: In the case of such pre-orders, when was the Claims Notice submitted to the customer? [Susan: since this comes up on a separate page, in isolation, respondents may not realise we’re asking about pre-orders so edit to make clear] * Change “Notice” to “Notices” [Susan: I don’t think this is really necessary but don’t have strong feelings either way] * Add clarification, e.g., before Sunrise, after Sunrise, etc. [Susan – I think we made this an open field box deliberately] Q9: Do you encounter challenges when sending Claims Notices for pre-order names? * Add a follow up question, e.g., “What are those challenges?”, “How difficult are those challenges”? [Susan: if they tick yes then they get asked what challenges so I think this is covered] End of survey * We appreciate your time and willingness to share your experiences and opinions. [Susan: yes]

1 0

Beta Testers' Feedback on Registrar Survey - Review by COB Thursday, 23 Aug
by Ariel Liang Aug. 23, 2018

Aug. 23, 2018

Dear Data Sub Team members (and Susan in particular), Beta testers have reviewed the Registrar survey and provided feedback by COB on Wednesday 22 August. Test link: http://ICANNregistrar.cloudssi.com/login.html. Please see below a summary of feedback/suggestion from the beta testers (technical issues reported by the testers have been forwarded to Analysis Group directly). Since there is no question numbering or individual URL for each question, staff took screenshots of the questions that testers had feedback and created numbering for ease of reference. Furthermore, the Registrar survey is programed to use numeric user passwords to allow survey takers to save their responses & return to the survey to complete. Please read the instruction on the login page and report issues, if any. You are welcome to go through the survey itself and let staff know any additional issues you have encountered. By COB Thursday, 23 August, please be so kind to let us your input. Analysis Group will implement the changes accordingly. Thank you for your time and help! Best Regards, Mary, Julie, Ariel, and Berry == General Comment * Replace “registrar” with “Registrar” and replace “registry” with “Registry” (capital R) in questions throughout the survey. Q1: Before the beginning of a start date Sunrise period, on average, how much notice do you receive? If you have not encountered a start date Sunrise period, please select “N/A.” * Add the definition of “Start Date Sunrise” and “End Date Sunrise” to provide context to the question: * Start Date Sunrise: Registry must provide the Sunrise registration service for a minimum of 30 calendar days prior to General Registration and must provide 30 calendar days’ notice prior to the start of the Sunrise period. Trademark-related Domains are registered on first-come, first-served (or other) basis. * End Date Sunrise: Registry has no advance notice requirement to trademark owners but must provide the Sunrise registration service for a minimum of 60 calendar days prior to General Registration, and must not use a time-based allocation methods (e.g., first come, first served). At the end of the period, all the claims are registered by the Registry and auctions are conducted if there is more than one claim for the same domain. Q2: How long do you think the ideal mandatory length for the Sunrise period should be (in days)? * Add an open text field to ask survey takers to briefly provide rationales to their selections Q3: What impact does the current minimum 30-day Sunrise period have on the following outcomes (relative to having no Sunrise period), respectively? Please select all that apply. * Change all “Registry Operators” to “Registrars” in the first row Q4: What impact do you think a period of 60 days would have on the following outcomes (relative to having no Sunrise period), respectively? Please select all that apply. * Change all “Registry Operators” to “Registrars” in the first row Q5: Do registries provide you with a list of reserved names? * Add “regularly” before “provide” in the question (to reflect that reserved names list is a dynamic set of data) Q6: On average, how much notice do you receive of reserved names, in advance of a new generic top-level domain (gTLD) launch? * A loaded question – Registries have no obligations to notify any parties about changes to reserved names list Q7: How long should the Claims period be? * Add “In this hypothetical situation” at the beginning of the question Q8: When was the Claims Notice submitted to the customer? * Change “Notice” to “Notices” * Add clarification, e.g., before Sunrise, after Sunrise, etc. Q9: Do you encounter challenges when sending Claims Notices for pre-order names? * Add a follow up question, e.g., “What are those challenges?”, “How difficult are those challenges”? End of survey * We appreciate your time and willingness to share your experiences and opinions.

2 1

Revised Actual/Potential Registrant Survey - Review by COB Today
by Ariel Liang Aug. 22, 2018

Aug. 22, 2018

Dear Data Sub Team, Analysis Group/Research Now SSI have implemented the changes reviewed by the Data Sub Team. Please see the updated survey here: https://online.ssisurveys.com/wix/3/p3772093.aspx?mode=2 Please note: * Staff are following up on some technical changes suggested by Beta Testers. Specifically, the Trademark Claims Notice should be bigger to allow the survey takers to read the text. * For the actual/potential registrant survey, Analysis Group suggested not to incorporate the function for survey takers to save their progress and return to survey, as it is rather short. By COB today (Wednesday, 22 August), please let us know if any substantial change needs to be made to this survey. Analysis Group plans the launch the survey as soon as practical after the Data Sub Team completes the final review today. Thank you! Mary, Julie, Ariel & Berry From: Ariel Liang <ariel.liang(a)icann.org> Date: Tuesday, August 21, 2018 at 3:14 PM To: Susan Payne <susan.payne(a)valideus.com>, "Tushnet, Rebecca" <rtushnet(a)law.harvard.edu>, "gnso-rpm-data(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-data(a)icann.org> Subject: Re: [Ext] RE: [Gnso-rpm-data] Beta Testers' Feedback - Review by COB Monday Dear Data Sub Team, Re “why the same question appears in Q6b and Q8c1”, Analysis Group responded as follows: The same respondent will not be able to see both Q6b and Q8c1. Q6b will only be shown to respondents who have registered a domain name in a new gTLD in the past five years. Q8c1 is only for respondents who have attempted but not completed a registration. If testers chose to skip to specific questions in the survey rather than follow the programmed flow of the survey by using the arrows on each page, then they may have seen both questions. If, however, a tester can provide the series of responses that allowed them to see both Q6b and Q8c1, we will report this issue to RN SSI. Thank you, Mary, Julie, Ariel & Berry From: Ariel Liang <ariel.liang(a)icann.org> Date: Monday, August 20, 2018 at 5:41 PM To: Susan Payne <susan.payne(a)valideus.com>, "Tushnet, Rebecca" <rtushnet(a)law.harvard.edu>, "gnso-rpm-data(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-data(a)icann.org> Subject: Re: [Ext] RE: [Gnso-rpm-data] Beta Testers' Feedback - Review by COB Monday Dear Susan, Lori, and Rebecca, Thank you very much for your detailed input to the feedback from the Beta Testers. Staff have consolidated the input and summarized the changes to be forwarded to Analysis Group. We greatly appreciate that you take the time reviewing all the comments in detail. For your record, please see the summary below. Best Regards, Mary, Julie, Ariel, Berry == INTRO: https://online.ssisurveys.com/wix/p3772093.aspx?r=61&s=VMFNEKFJ&__goto=INTRO<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__online.ssisurveys.com_…> * Revise the Intro: “This survey is about domain names and the process of registering domain names. Examples of domain names are google.com, icann.org, food.store, store.art, and bluesky.nyc. gTLDs are the class of top-level domains that includes general-purpose domains such as .com, .net, .edu, and .org. This class also includes domains associated with the New Generic Top-Level Domain Program<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_icann-2D…> (New gTLD Program), which includes names such as .futbol, .istanbul, and .pizza, and names in other alphabets and languages. Please note that your responses are voluntary and will be kept confidential, and that responses will not be identified by individual or company. Finally, although the time to complete the survey will vary, we anticipate that it will take an average of approximately 15 minutes.” Q1: https://online.ssisurveys.com/wix/p3772093.aspx?r=61&s=VMFNEKFJ&__goto=Q1<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__online.ssisurveys.com_…> * Revise the question: “Have you, within the last five years, registered or initiated the registration of a domain name in one of the “new” type of top-level domains (“new gTLDs”)? Legacy domain names such as .COM, .ORG, and .NET and country code top-level domains (ccTLDs) such as .US, .EU, and .CN are not included.” * Revise the text in the pop-up message: “As a result of the New gTLD Program, over 1,300 new generic Top-Level Domains have now been, or shortly will be active on the Internet. These new gTLDs include the following. Please note that some new gTLDs may not be included in the list below.” And delete the “Delegated Strings” subheading. * Revise Q1:2: “Yes, I attempted to register a domain name in a new gTLD but did not complete the registration” Q3: https://online.ssisurveys.com/wix/p3772093.aspx?r=61&s=VMFNEKFJ&__goto=Q3<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__online.ssisurveys.com_…> * Revise the question: “To the best of your recollection, how many domain names have you attempted to register in new gTLDs within the past five years? ” * Revise the text in the pop-up message: “As a result of the New gTLD Program, over 1,300 new generic Top-Level Domains have now been, or shortly will be active on the Internet. These new gTLDs include the following. Please note that some new gTLDs may not be included in the list below.” And delete the “Delegated Strings” subheading. Q4: https://online.ssisurveys.com/wix/3/p3772093.aspx?r=61&s=VMFNEKFJ&__goto=Q4<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__online.ssisurveys.com_…> * Revise the question: “To the best of your recollection, how many domain names have you completed registration for in new gTLDs within the past five years?” Q5: https://online.ssisurveys.com/wix/3/p3772093.aspx?r=61&s=VMFNEKFJ&__goto=Q5<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__online.ssisurveys.com_…> * Revise the first sentence in the intro: “If you recall, which new gTLD(s) did you register your domain name in? Not the exact domain name, but just the new Top Level Domain in which you registered it, e.g., .CLUB, .NINJA, .XYZ, .LOVE. Legacy TLDs (e.g., .COM, .NET, .ORG) and ccTLDs (e.g., .US, .EU, .CN) are not being considered.” * Revise the text in the pop-up message: “As a result of the New gTLD Program, over 1,300 new generic Top-Level Domains have now been, or shortly will be active on the Internet. These new gTLDs include the following. Please note that some new gTLDs may not be included in the list below.” And delete the “Delegated Strings” subheading. Q6a: https://online.ssisurveys.com/wix/3/p3772093.aspx?r=61&s=VMFNEKFJ&__goto=Q6a<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__online.ssisurveys.com_…> * Revise the question: “If you received multiple Claims Notices, we would like you to focus now on the first one you received. Did you register the domain name for which you received a Claims Notice?” Q6b: https://online.ssisurveys.com/wix/p3772093.aspx?r=61&s=VMFNEKFJ&__goto=Q6b<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__online.ssisurveys.com_…> * Revise the question: “How much time do you recall spending reading the Claims Notice?” Q6c: https://online.ssisurveys.com/wix/p3772093.aspx?r=61&s=VMFNEKFJ&__goto=Q6c<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__online.ssisurveys.com_…> * Revise Q6c:1: “No, I always decide not to complete my registration when I am presented with a Claims Notice and always for the same reasons given in the previous question.” * Revise Q6c:2: “No, I always decide to complete my registration when I am presented with a Claims Notice and always for the same reasons given in the previous question.” Q7: https://online.ssisurveys.com/wix/p3772093.aspx?r=61&s=VMFNEKFJ&__goto=Q7<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__online.ssisurveys.com_…> * Remove Q7:5: “To inform me that someone else previously registered my domain name” * Revise Q7:1 to: “To inform me about the potential rights of trademark owners against me should I proceed to complete registration of my selected domain name” * Revise Q7:2 to: “To inform me that there is a trademark owner with a trademark or a protected term that matches the domain name I have selected” * Add an open text field next to answer Q7:98 “None of the above” to ask respondents to provide reason(s). Q8: https://online.ssisurveys.com/wix/3/p3772093.aspx?r=61&s=VMFNEKFJ&__goto=Q8<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__online.ssisurveys.com_…> * Revise Q8:1: “Uniform Rapid Suspension System (URS) or Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) Complaint notice” * Revise Q8:3: “Notice of a lawsuit for trademark infringement” * Add an answer option between Q8:3 and Q8:97 (fourth option): “No, I have not received any warnings or notices of possible trademark conflict regarding my choice of domain name” Q8c1: https://online.ssisurveys.com/wix/3/p3772093.aspx?r=64&s=JZYXUYWE&__goto=Q8…<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__online.ssisurveys.com_…> * Revise the question: “How much time do you recall spending reading the Claims Notice?” QUESTION to AG: why are respondents asked the same Q in 6b and 8c1? Q8d: https://online.ssisurveys.com/wix/p3772093.aspx?r=64&s=JZYXUYWE&__goto=Q8d<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__online.ssisurveys.com_…> * Remove Q8d:5: “To inform me that someone else previously registered my domain name” * Revise Q8d:1: “To inform me about the potential rights of trademark owners against me should I proceed to complete registration of my selected domain name” * Revise Q8d:2: “To inform me that there is a trademark owner with a trademark or a protected term that matches the domain name I have selected” * Add an open text field next to answer Q8d:98 “None of the above” to ask respondents to provide reason(s). Q9: https://online.ssisurveys.com/wix/3/p3772093.aspx?r=61&s=VMFNEKFJ&__goto=Q9 * Revise the question: “How many times in the past five years have you begun to register a domain name in a new gTLD (legacy domain names such as .COM, .ORG, and .NET and ccTLDs such as .US, .EU, and .CN are not included) and not completed the process? * Revise the text in the pop-up message: “As a result of the New gTLD Program, over 1,300 new generic Top-Level Domains have now been, or shortly will be active on the Internet. These new gTLDs include the following. Please note that some new gTLDs may not be included in the list below.” And delete the “Delegated Strings” subheading. Q9a: https://online.ssisurveys.com/wix/3/p3772093.aspx?r=61&s=VMFNEKFJ&__goto=Q9a * Revise the text in the pop-up message: “As a result of the New gTLD Program, over 1,300 new generic Top-Level Domains have now been, or shortly will be active on the Internet. These new gTLDs include the following. Please note that some new gTLDs may not be included in the list below.” And delete the “Delegated Strings” subheading. Q10: https://online.ssisurveys.com/wix/p3772093.aspx?r=64&s=JZYXUYWE&__goto=Q10<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__online.ssisurveys.com_…> * Revise Q10:1: “I have a business/program/initiative that uses that name or something very similar” * Revise Q10:2: “I am thinking of starting a business/program/initiative using that name” * Add an answer option between Q10:4 and Q10:98: “I have a trademark which contains the domain name string”

1 1

Re: [Gnso-rpm-data] [Ext] RE: Beta Testers' Feedback - Review by COB Monday
by Ariel Liang Aug. 21, 2018

Aug. 21, 2018

Dear Susan, Lori, and Rebecca, Thank you very much for your detailed input to the feedback from the Beta Testers. Staff have consolidated the input and summarized the changes to be forwarded to Analysis Group. We greatly appreciate that you take the time reviewing all the comments in detail. For your record, please see the summary below. Best Regards, Mary, Julie, Ariel, Berry == INTRO: https://online.ssisurveys.com/wix/p3772093.aspx?r=61&s=VMFNEKFJ&__goto=INTRO<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__online.ssisurveys.com_…> * Revise the Intro: “This survey is about domain names and the process of registering domain names. Examples of domain names are google.com, icann.org, food.store, store.art, and bluesky.nyc. gTLDs are the class of top-level domains that includes general-purpose domains such as .com, .net, .edu, and .org. This class also includes domains associated with the New Generic Top-Level Domain Program<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_icann-2D…> (New gTLD Program), which includes names such as .futbol, .istanbul, and .pizza, and names in other alphabets and languages. Please note that your responses are voluntary and will be kept confidential, and that responses will not be identified by individual or company. Finally, although the time to complete the survey will vary, we anticipate that it will take an average of approximately 15 minutes.” Q1: https://online.ssisurveys.com/wix/p3772093.aspx?r=61&s=VMFNEKFJ&__goto=Q1<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__online.ssisurveys.com_…> * Revise the question: “Have you, within the last five years, registered or initiated the registration of a domain name in one of the “new” type of top-level domains (“new gTLDs”)? Legacy domain names such as .COM, .ORG, and .NET and country code top-level domains (ccTLDs) such as .US, .EU, and .CN are not included.” * Revise the text in the pop-up message: “As a result of the New gTLD Program, over 1,300 new generic Top-Level Domains have now been, or shortly will be active on the Internet. These new gTLDs include the following. Please note that some new gTLDs may not be included in the list below.” And delete the “Delegated Strings” subheading. * Revise Q1:2: “Yes, I attempted to register a domain name in a new gTLD but did not complete the registration” Q3: https://online.ssisurveys.com/wix/p3772093.aspx?r=61&s=VMFNEKFJ&__goto=Q3<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__online.ssisurveys.com_…> * Revise the question: “To the best of your recollection, how many domain names have you attempted to register in new gTLDs within the past five years? ” * Revise the text in the pop-up message: “As a result of the New gTLD Program, over 1,300 new generic Top-Level Domains have now been, or shortly will be active on the Internet. These new gTLDs include the following. Please note that some new gTLDs may not be included in the list below.” And delete the “Delegated Strings” subheading. Q4: https://online.ssisurveys.com/wix/3/p3772093.aspx?r=61&s=VMFNEKFJ&__goto=Q4<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__online.ssisurveys.com_…> * Revise the question: “To the best of your recollection, how many domain names have you completed registration for in new gTLDs within the past five years?” Q5: https://online.ssisurveys.com/wix/3/p3772093.aspx?r=61&s=VMFNEKFJ&__goto=Q5<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__online.ssisurveys.com_…> * Revise the first sentence in the intro: “If you recall, which new gTLD(s) did you register your domain name in? Not the exact domain name, but just the new Top Level Domain in which you registered it, e.g., .CLUB, .NINJA, .XYZ, .LOVE. Legacy TLDs (e.g., .COM, .NET, .ORG) and ccTLDs (e.g., .US, .EU, .CN) are not being considered.” * Revise the text in the pop-up message: “As a result of the New gTLD Program, over 1,300 new generic Top-Level Domains have now been, or shortly will be active on the Internet. These new gTLDs include the following. Please note that some new gTLDs may not be included in the list below.” And delete the “Delegated Strings” subheading. Q6a: https://online.ssisurveys.com/wix/3/p3772093.aspx?r=61&s=VMFNEKFJ&__goto=Q6a<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__online.ssisurveys.com_…> * Revise the question: “If you received multiple Claims Notices, we would like you to focus now on the first one you received. Did you register the domain name for which you received a Claims Notice?” Q6b: https://online.ssisurveys.com/wix/p3772093.aspx?r=61&s=VMFNEKFJ&__goto=Q6b<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__online.ssisurveys.com_…> * Revise the question: “How much time do you recall spending reading the Claims Notice?” Q6c: https://online.ssisurveys.com/wix/p3772093.aspx?r=61&s=VMFNEKFJ&__goto=Q6c<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__online.ssisurveys.com_…> * Revise Q6c:1: “No, I always decide not to complete my registration when I am presented with a Claims Notice and always for the same reasons given in the previous question.” * Revise Q6c:2: “No, I always decide to complete my registration when I am presented with a Claims Notice and always for the same reasons given in the previous question.” Q7: https://online.ssisurveys.com/wix/p3772093.aspx?r=61&s=VMFNEKFJ&__goto=Q7<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__online.ssisurveys.com_…> * Remove Q7:5: “To inform me that someone else previously registered my domain name” * Revise Q7:1 to: “To inform me about the potential rights of trademark owners against me should I proceed to complete registration of my selected domain name” * Revise Q7:2 to: “To inform me that there is a trademark owner with a trademark or a protected term that matches the domain name I have selected” * Add an open text field next to answer Q7:98 “None of the above” to ask respondents to provide reason(s). Q8: https://online.ssisurveys.com/wix/3/p3772093.aspx?r=61&s=VMFNEKFJ&__goto=Q8<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__online.ssisurveys.com_…> * Revise Q8:1: “Uniform Rapid Suspension System (URS) or Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) Complaint notice” * Revise Q8:3: “Notice of a lawsuit for trademark infringement” * Add an answer option between Q8:3 and Q8:97 (fourth option): “No, I have not received any warnings or notices of possible trademark conflict regarding my choice of domain name” Q8c1: https://online.ssisurveys.com/wix/3/p3772093.aspx?r=64&s=JZYXUYWE&__goto=Q8…<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__online.ssisurveys.com_…> * Revise the question: “How much time do you recall spending reading the Claims Notice?” QUESTION to AG: why are respondents asked the same Q in 6b and 8c1? Q8d: https://online.ssisurveys.com/wix/p3772093.aspx?r=64&s=JZYXUYWE&__goto=Q8d<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__online.ssisurveys.com_…> * Remove Q8d:5: “To inform me that someone else previously registered my domain name” * Revise Q8d:1: “To inform me about the potential rights of trademark owners against me should I proceed to complete registration of my selected domain name” * Revise Q8d:2: “To inform me that there is a trademark owner with a trademark or a protected term that matches the domain name I have selected” * Add an open text field next to answer Q8d:98 “None of the above” to ask respondents to provide reason(s). Q9: https://online.ssisurveys.com/wix/3/p3772093.aspx?r=61&s=VMFNEKFJ&__goto=Q9 * Revise the question: “How many times in the past five years have you begun to register a domain name in a new gTLD (legacy domain names such as .COM, .ORG, and .NET and ccTLDs such as .US, .EU, and .CN are not included) and not completed the process? * Revise the text in the pop-up message: “As a result of the New gTLD Program, over 1,300 new generic Top-Level Domains have now been, or shortly will be active on the Internet. These new gTLDs include the following. Please note that some new gTLDs may not be included in the list below.” And delete the “Delegated Strings” subheading. Q9a: https://online.ssisurveys.com/wix/3/p3772093.aspx?r=61&s=VMFNEKFJ&__goto=Q9a * Revise the text in the pop-up message: “As a result of the New gTLD Program, over 1,300 new generic Top-Level Domains have now been, or shortly will be active on the Internet. These new gTLDs include the following. Please note that some new gTLDs may not be included in the list below.” And delete the “Delegated Strings” subheading. Q10: https://online.ssisurveys.com/wix/p3772093.aspx?r=64&s=JZYXUYWE&__goto=Q10<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__online.ssisurveys.com_…> * Revise Q10:1: “I have a business/program/initiative that uses that name or something very similar” * Revise Q10:2: “I am thinking of starting a business/program/initiative using that name” * Add an answer option between Q10:4 and Q10:98: “I have a trademark which contains the domain name string” From: Susan Payne <susan.payne(a)valideus.com> Date: Monday, August 20, 2018 at 11:45 AM To: "Tushnet, Rebecca" <rtushnet(a)law.harvard.edu>, 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] Beta Testers' Feedback - Review by COB Monday Thanks for your clarification Rebecca. I like your suggestion on Q6. I didn’t recall that we’d decided to remove that option from Q7, although I’m sure your memory on this is better than mine since you were leading. It certainly seemed an odd option to offer, so it makes sense to me that it would come out. Q13 – agree. Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy | Valideus Ltd E: susan.payne(a)valideus.com<mailto:susan.payne@valideus.com> D: +44 20 7421 8255 T: +44 20 7421 8299 M: +44 7971 661175 From: Tushnet, Rebecca [mailto:rtushnet@law.harvard.edu] Sent: 20 August 2018 13:35 To: Susan Payne <susan.payne(a)valideus.com>; Ariel Liang <ariel.liang(a)icann.org>; gnso-rpm-data(a)icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-rpm-data] Beta Testers' Feedback - Review by COB Monday I want to thank Susan and Lori for doing so much of what I had planned on doing; bless you. I am basically in agreement with Susan though I will go further and say I think it's silly and perhaps counterproductive to add a definition of a domain name. I have no objection to saying more about new gTLDs versus legacy. As for the Q6 "how did you react to a claims notice" issue, I believe we'd drafted it with the intent of asking about their first time receiving a notice, then asking if they did anything differently next time/s and if so what/why. I have no strong feelings about this but hope only for consistency. I see how the first version could be confusing, but perhaps we could begin Q6 with something like "If you received multiple claims notices, we'd like you to focus now on the first one you received." Then proceed to Q6 and its children. For Q7, the option “To inform me that someone else previously registered the domain name I have selected”, we agreed to remove that and it shouldn't be there at all, reworded or not. I would like AG to confirm that this will be done, given its persistence through a couple of rounds now. [Just a note for everyone else as we go through this--we won't necessarily see the options in the same order since they are randomized! Our beta testers probably won't know that but we should keep that in mind and quote the actual options rather than numbers in our discussion.] I hope that feedback will not automatically be incorporated unless we're ok with it, given the time we've already spent. E.g., the suggested change to Q13 strikes me as pointless and requiring too much work to fix--at this point we risk introducing errors as well as fixes. Rebecca Tushnet Frank Stanton Professor of First Amendment Law, Harvard Law School 703 593 6759 ________________________________ From: Gnso-rpm-data <gnso-rpm-data-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-data-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Susan Payne <susan.payne(a)valideus.com<mailto:susan.payne@valideus.com>> Sent: Monday, August 20, 2018 7:49:00 AM To: Ariel Liang; gnso-rpm-data(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-data@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-rpm-data] Beta Testers' Feedback - Review by COB Monday Thanks Ariel. All – my thoughts below. Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy | Valideus Ltd E: susan.payne(a)valideus.com<mailto:susan.payne@valideus.com> D: +44 20 7421 8255 T: +44 20 7421 8299 M: +44 7971 661175 From: Gnso-rpm-data [mailto:gnso-rpm-data-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Ariel Liang Sent: 17 August 2018 20:08 To: gnso-rpm-data(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-data@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-rpm-data] Beta Testers' Feedback - Review by COB Monday Dear Data Sub Team members (and Rebecca in particular), Beta testers have reviewed the actual/potential registrant surveys. Test link: https://online.ssisurveys.com/wix/p3772093.aspx?mode=2<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__online.ssisurveys.com_…> Please see below a summary of feedback/suggestion from the beta testers, with reference to the question number and URL for context/details. While the feedback is mostly cosmetic, we do want to make sure the Data Sub Team is okay with any potential change. By COB Monday, 20 August, please be so kind to let us know whether you agree or disagree with the input from beta testers, OR whether you have alternative suggestions. Analysis Group will implement the changes accordingly. Thank you for your time and help! Best Regards, Mary, Julie, Ariel, and Berry == INTRO: https://online.ssisurveys.com/wix/p3772093.aspx?r=61&s=VMFNEKFJ&__goto=INTRO<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__online.ssisurveys.com_…> * Consider adding definition of gTLDs, new gTLDs, domain name in the intro (based on ICANN glossary): * Domain name: “The domain name identifies a specific address on the Internet that belongs to an entity such as a company, organization, institution, or individual. A domain name consists of two or more textual segments separated by dots.” * gTLD: “gTLDs are the class of top-level domains that includes general-purpose domains such as .com, .net, .edu, and .org. This class also includes domains associated with the New Generic Top-Level Domain Program<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_icann-2D…> (New gTLD Program), which includes names such as .futbol, .istanbul, and .pizza, and names in other alphabets and languages.” [Susan: I am assuming this is the survey for registrants/potential registrants. For those groups to be qualified to answer then I’d like to think they know what a domain name and a gTLD is. But I don’t have an overwhelming objection to adding these definitions. However I think if we are going to give a couple of examples for what is a new gTLD we ought to also give a couple of examples for what is a domain name too. Maybe facebook.com and icann.org?] Q1: https://online.ssisurveys.com/wix/p3772093.aspx?r=61&s=VMFNEKFJ&__goto=Q1<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__online.ssisurveys.com_…> * Revise pop-up message linked to “here”: * Clarify the “strings” are the new gTLDs when preceded by a dot. [Susan: If we are including the definitions above then we have already told people what a new gTLD is. In any event I think this sentence (Over 1,300 new names or "strings" could become available in the next few years.) is now misleading as it refers to a time before the new gTLDs were rolling out – many of the 1300 are already available now. Maybe we just say something like the following to replace all of that text “As a result of the New gTLD Program a large number of new gTLDs have now been delegated into the root zone of the internet and have been, or shortly will be launched. These include the following, please note that some new gTLDs may not be included in the list below” ] * This sentence in the pop-up message is unclear: “After completing the New gTLD Program, a new gTLD becomes part of the Internet when it is delegated”. * Delete this sentence: “This means it is introduced into the Internet's authoritative database, known as the Root Zone”. * Rephrase the last sentence to: “Please note that some new TLDs may not be included in the list below”. * The second answer option should start with “Yes” (“Yes, I attempted to register a domain name in a new gTLD but did not complete the registration”). [Susan: I think this makes sense – but it depends on how you funnel the answers for the rest of the survey.] Q3: https://online.ssisurveys.com/wix/p3772093.aspx?r=61&s=VMFNEKFJ&__goto=Q3<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__online.ssisurveys.com_…> • Remove “Don’t know/not sure” option, and ask respondents to provide an approximate range based on the options above [Susan: disagree. If they can provide an approximate range they will already do so. Maybe we should reword the question to: To the best of your recollection how many domain names have you attempted to register in new gTLDs within the past five years?] Q4: https://online.ssisurveys.com/wix/3/p3772093.aspx?r=61&s=VMFNEKFJ&__goto=Q4<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__online.ssisurveys.com_…> * Remove “Don’t know/not sure” option, and ask respondents to provide an approximate range based on the options above [Susan – same comment as above] Q5: https://online.ssisurveys.com/wix/3/p3772093.aspx?r=61&s=VMFNEKFJ&__goto=Q5<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__online.ssisurveys.com_…> * In the intro, emphasize that ccTLDs and legacy TLDs are not being considered. Provide examples of ccTLDs and legacy TLDs in case respondents don’t click the hyperlinked “here”. [Susan: fine] Q6a: https://online.ssisurveys.com/wix/3/p3772093.aspx?r=61&s=VMFNEKFJ&__goto=Q6a<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__online.ssisurveys.com_…> * Rephrase the question to: “Did you register one or more domain names for which you received a Claims Notice?” [Susan: I think this makes sense unless we’re asking questions about a single experience – from later questions it seems like this might have been asking about the first experience of seeing a claims notice, and if so then the question is correct as drafted] Q6b: https://online.ssisurveys.com/wix/p3772093.aspx?r=61&s=VMFNEKFJ&__goto=Q6b<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__online.ssisurveys.com_…> * Rephrase the question to: “How much time do you recall spending reading the Claims Notice?” [Susan: fine – assuming this is a question about reading the Claims Notice] Q6c: https://online.ssisurveys.com/wix/p3772093.aspx?r=61&s=VMFNEKFJ&__goto=Q6c<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__online.ssisurveys.com_…> * Add an open text field for answer option 1 and option 2, similar to the other answer options. [Susan: it seems like 1 and 2 are options where they have already given us the reason, whereas later options are for new/different reasons and so need the open text box. Maybe we should amend options one and two to say “…always for the same reasons given in question X”] Q7: https://online.ssisurveys.com/wix/p3772093.aspx?r=61&s=VMFNEKFJ&__goto=Q7<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__online.ssisurveys.com_…> * Rephrase answer option 3 to: “To inform me about the potential rights of trademark owners against me should I proceed to complete registration of my selected domain name” [Susan: This is what’s intended. If beta test feedback is that the current wording is unclear then I don’t object to changing it.] * Rephrase answer option 4 to: “To inform me that someone else previously registered the domain name I have selected” [Susan: This is what’s intended. If beta test feedback is that the current wording is unclear then I don’t object to changing it – but subject to my suggested edit.] * Rephrase answer option 5 to: “To inform me that there is a trademark owner with a trademark or a protected string/term that matches the domain name I have selected” [Susan: This is what’s intended. If beta test feedback is that the current wording is unclear then I don’t object to changing it – but subject to my suggested edit.] * Add an open text field next to answer option 6 “None of the above” to ask respondents to provide reason(s). [Susan: no objection, although presumably it will be more work to sift the answers] Q8: https://online.ssisurveys.com/wix/3/p3772093.aspx?r=61&s=VMFNEKFJ&__goto=Q8<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__online.ssisurveys.com_…> * Rephrase the answer option 1 to: “Uniform Rapid Suspension System (URS) or Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) Complaint notice” [Susan: fine] * Rephrase the answer option 3 to: “Notice of a lawsuit for trademark infringement” [Susan: I can’t see what’s wrong with existing language] * Add an answer option: “No, I have not received any warnings or notices of possible trademark conflict regarding my choice of domain name” [Susan: agree, we need a NO option. It should come as option 4] Q8c1: https://online.ssisurveys.com/wix/3/p3772093.aspx?r=64&s=JZYXUYWE&__goto=Q8…<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__online.ssisurveys.com_…> * Rephrase the question to: “How much time do you recall spending reading the Claims Notice?” [Susan: fine – assuming this is a question about reading the Claims Notice. But need to check that this is the case because, if so, why are they being asked the same Q in 6b and 8c1?] Q8d: https://online.ssisurveys.com/wix/p3772093.aspx?r=64&s=JZYXUYWE&__goto=Q8d<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__online.ssisurveys.com_…> * Rephrase answer option 3 to: “To inform me that there is a trademark owner with a trademark or a protected string/term that matches the domain name I have selected” [Susan: This is what’s intended. If beta test feedback is that the current wording is unclear then I don’t object to changing it – but subject to my suggested edit.] Q10: https://online.ssisurveys.com/wix/p3772093.aspx?r=64&s=JZYXUYWE&__goto=Q10<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__online.ssisurveys.com_…> * Rephrase answer option 1 to: “I have a business/program/initiative that uses that name or something very similar” (noncommercial, not for profit, advocacy purpose is missing in the original wording) ). [Susan: no objection] * Rephrase answer option 2 to: “I am thinking of starting a business/program/initiative using that name” (noncommercial, not for profit, advocacy purpose is missing in the original wording) ). [Susan: no objection] * Add an answer option: “I have a trademark which contains the domain name string” ). [Susan: no objection] Q13: https://online.ssisurveys.com/wix/p3772093.aspx?r=64&s=JZYXUYWE&__goto=Q13<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__online.ssisurveys.com_…> * Replace “my country” with “the country of my current residence” in all answer options [Susan: the question asks about country of current residence so this seems unnecessary to me. But if there was a lot of feedback that this might be understood then I guess you could add this to all options. You will have to re-order the wording so the sentences read properly]

1 1

Beta Testers' Feedback - Review by COB Monday
by Ariel Liang Aug. 20, 2018

Aug. 20, 2018

Dear Data Sub Team members (and Rebecca in particular), Beta testers have reviewed the actual/potential registrant surveys. Test link: https://online.ssisurveys.com/wix/p3772093.aspx?mode=2 Please see below a summary of feedback/suggestion from the beta testers, with reference to the question number and URL for context/details. While the feedback is mostly cosmetic, we do want to make sure the Data Sub Team is okay with any potential change. By COB Monday, 20 August, please be so kind to let us know whether you agree or disagree with the input from beta testers, OR whether you have alternative suggestions. Analysis Group will implement the changes accordingly. Thank you for your time and help! Best Regards, Mary, Julie, Ariel, and Berry == INTRO: https://online.ssisurveys.com/wix/p3772093.aspx?r=61&s=VMFNEKFJ&__goto=INTRO * Consider adding definition of gTLDs, new gTLDs, domain name in the intro (based on ICANN glossary): * Domain name: “The domain name identifies a specific address on the Internet that belongs to an entity such as a company, organization, institution, or individual. A domain name consists of two or more textual segments separated by dots.” * gTLD: “gTLDs are the class of top-level domains that includes general-purpose domains such as .com, .net, .edu, and .org. This class also includes domains associated with the New Generic Top-Level Domain Program<https://www.icann.org/icann-acronyms-and-terms/en/G0167> (New gTLD Program), which includes names such as .futbol, .istanbul, and .pizza, and names in other alphabets and languages.” Q1: https://online.ssisurveys.com/wix/p3772093.aspx?r=61&s=VMFNEKFJ&__goto=Q1 * Revise pop-up message linked to “here”: * Clarify the “strings” are the new gTLDs when preceded by a dot. * This sentence in the pop-up message is unclear: “After completing the New gTLD Program, a new gTLD becomes part of the Internet when it is delegated”. * Delete this sentence: “This means it is introduced into the Internet's authoritative database, known as the Root Zone”. * Rephrase the last sentence to: “Please note that some new TLDs may not be included in the list below”. * The second answer option should start with “Yes” (“Yes, I attempted to register a domain name in a new gTLD but did not complete the registration”). Q3: https://online.ssisurveys.com/wix/p3772093.aspx?r=61&s=VMFNEKFJ&__goto=Q3 * Remove “Don’t know/not sure” option, and ask respondents to provide an approximate range based on the options above Q4: https://online.ssisurveys.com/wix/3/p3772093.aspx?r=61&s=VMFNEKFJ&__goto=Q4 * Remove “Don’t know/not sure” option, and ask respondents to provide an approximate range based on the options above Q5: https://online.ssisurveys.com/wix/3/p3772093.aspx?r=61&s=VMFNEKFJ&__goto=Q5 * In the intro, emphasize that ccTLDs and legacy TLDs are not being considered. Provide examples of ccTLDs and legacy TLDs in case respondents don’t click the hyperlinked “here”. Q6a: https://online.ssisurveys.com/wix/3/p3772093.aspx?r=61&s=VMFNEKFJ&__goto=Q6a * Rephrase the question to: “Did you register one or more domain names for which you received a Claims Notice?” Q6b: https://online.ssisurveys.com/wix/p3772093.aspx?r=61&s=VMFNEKFJ&__goto=Q6b * Rephrase the question to: “How much time do you recall spending reading the Claims Notice?” Q6c: https://online.ssisurveys.com/wix/p3772093.aspx?r=61&s=VMFNEKFJ&__goto=Q6c * Add an open text field for answer option 1 and option 2, similar to the other answer options. Q7: https://online.ssisurveys.com/wix/p3772093.aspx?r=61&s=VMFNEKFJ&__goto=Q7 * Rephrase answer option 3 to: “To inform me about the potential rights of trademark owners against me should I proceed to complete registration of my selected domain name” * Rephrase answer option 4 to: “To inform me about someone else previously registered the domain name I have selected” * Rephrase answer option 5 to: “To inform me that there is a trademark owner with a trademark or a protected string/term that matches the domain name I have selected” * Add an open text field next to answer option 6 “None of the above” to ask respondents to provide reason(s). Q8: https://online.ssisurveys.com/wix/3/p3772093.aspx?r=61&s=VMFNEKFJ&__goto=Q8 * Rephrase the answer option 1 to: “Uniform Rapid Suspension System (URS) or Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) Complaint notice” * Rephrase the answer option 3 to: “Notice of a lawsuit for trademark infringement” * Add an answer option: “No, I have not received any warnings or notices of possible trademark conflict regarding my choice of domain name” Q8c1: https://online.ssisurveys.com/wix/3/p3772093.aspx?r=64&s=JZYXUYWE&__goto=Q8… * Rephrase the question to: “How much time do you recall spending reading the Claims Notice?” Q8d: https://online.ssisurveys.com/wix/p3772093.aspx?r=64&s=JZYXUYWE&__goto=Q8d * Rephrase answer option 3 to: “To inform me that there is a trademark owner with a trademark or a protected string/term that matches the domain name I have selected” Q10: https://online.ssisurveys.com/wix/p3772093.aspx?r=64&s=JZYXUYWE&__goto=Q10 * Rephrase answer option 1 to: “I have a business/program/initiative that uses that name or something very similar” (noncommercial, not for profit, advocacy purpose is missing in the original wording) * Rephrase answer option 2 to: “I am thinking of starting a business/program/initiative using that name” (noncommercial, not for profit, advocacy purpose is missing in the original wording) * Add an answer option: “I have a trademark which contains the domain name string” Q13: https://online.ssisurveys.com/wix/p3772093.aspx?r=64&s=JZYXUYWE&__goto=Q13 * Replace “my country” with “the country of my current residence” in all answer options

4 4

Re: [Gnso-rpm-data] [Ext] RE: Advice Needed: Complications Regarding Saving Survey Responses
by Ariel Liang Aug. 20, 2018

Aug. 20, 2018

Hello Kristine and all, Please see below the responses from Analysis Group to Kristine’s question. Analysis Group has been making progress on the alternative options/workarounds, and will be able to provide another update shortly. We will keep the Sub Team posted. Please let us know if you have any further comments/questions. Best Regards, Mary, Julie, Ariel & Berry == Kristine: If we do NOT use passwords, than anyone with the link can take the survey, right? AG: That is correct. The survey will be publicly available, and anyone with the link will be able to take the survey. Kristine: So if DO use passwords and we allow users to create them, what is the risk if they don’t create “unique” passwords? Because I’m not seeing any risk to just letting them create a password. This is just a little placeholder - a dog-earing of the electronic page if you will, it’s not performing a security function. (Right??) AG: If we allow users to create passwords, the survey will remain publicly available and anyone with the link will be able to take the survey. Users who create passwords will be able to save their responses and return to them later. The concern involved with non-unique passwords is that, because the password will be the only way for our programming to identify which survey record to re-open (i.e., users will not be creating unique user IDs and we will not be collecting IP address due to GDPR issues, so saved responses will be cataloged only by their password), if any users create the same password, their survey responses will appear in the survey data as if they came from one respondent when in fact there are two distinct respondents answering the questions. This can cause consistency issues, since we will be unaware of instances where this happens. For example, if a user chooses the password "1234" and completes questions 1-10 and leaves the survey, and then a second user attempts to create a password "1234" -- the second user will unwittingly log-in to the first user's survey and pick-up the survey at question 11. We will be unaware of this happening, but may find that the data appear inconsistent and/or invalid during our analysis of the data. Kristine: Or are you saying that the password is really just a token and if someone else arbitrarily creates the same one (like “1234” or “password”) we’ll have a mess? AG: Yes, as described above, we run the risk of overwriting or combining responses in a way that would cause responses to be impossible to untangle. To continue to follow up with our progress on the passwords: One solution that we would like to suggest is that users can be allowed to create a password, and we will embed a page visit counter next to the password field. We will suggest that users use the number from the counter for their password. This will guarantee that passwords will be unique for each user, although the pattern of the password generation may be a bit transparent. We have identified a way to implement this solution but will need to be careful to make sure the directions for password creation (for first-time visitors) and log-in (for return visitors) are very clear. Unfortunately, the password creation and log-in fields appear as one field in the survey. We are unable to place them on separate pages (i.e., create a log-in page for first-time users and a separate log-in page for return users). We are also investigating issues related to cookies, and expect to have resolved that issue and any related implementation issues by the end of this weekend if not sooner. We can send you another update tomorrow as we continue to make progress. There is a trade-off to consider regarding a portion of potential respondents who choose not to complete the survey if they learn that cookies are being sent to their computer. From: "Dorrain, Kristine" <dorraink(a)amazon.com> Date: Thursday, August 16, 2018 at 7:55 PM To: Ariel Liang <ariel.liang(a)icann.org>, "gnso-rpm-data(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-data(a)icann.org>, "Dorrain, Kristine" <dorraink(a)amazon.com> Subject: [Ext] RE: [Gnso-rpm-data] Advice Needed: Complications Regarding Saving Survey Responses Thanks for this Ariel: My initial thought is this. If we do NOT use passwords, than anyone with the link can take the survey, right? So if DO use passwords and we allow users to create them, what is the risk if they don’t create “unique” passwords? Because I’m not seeing any risk to just letting them create a password. This is just a little placeholder - a dog-earing of the electronic page if you will, it’s not performing a security function. (Right??) Or are you saying that the password is really just a token and if someone else arbitrarily creates the same one (like “1234” or “password”) we’ll have a mess? (ccing myself since I’m out tomorrow and I want to see the answer!) Kristine From: Gnso-rpm-data [mailto:gnso-rpm-data-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Ariel Liang Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2018 9:42 AM To: gnso-rpm-data(a)icann.org Subject: [Gnso-rpm-data] Advice Needed: Complications Regarding Saving Survey Responses Dear Data Sub Team members, Analysis Group is in process programming the surveys; the actual/potential registrant survey has already been pushed to the beta testing phase. A complication was discovered. Analysis Group informed staff that it is not possible to allow survey takers to “save” their responses and return to the surveys later to complete, unless the survey taker is given a login credential that can be validated. To create a login credential, the simplest way is for Analysis Group to obtain a list of email addresses of the individual survey takers. This, however, cannot be achieved given the outreach method that we are using to distribute the surveys (e.g., public links accessed via mailing lists, announcements, social media). Although GDD has the email contacts of registries and registrars, ICANN Org is not allowed to share the email contacts with Analysis Group directly due to the rightful use of these email contacts and associated legal/GDPR implications. Analysis Group is exploring other options/workarounds for survey takers to “save” their responses. One option is to allow users to create their own passwords, though it is difficult for Analysis Group to enforce unique password creation. They are experimenting with methods of suggesting unique passwords to users who would like to create a password. Another option is to distribute "cookies" with the survey, which will allow respondents to return to surveys that they have started. This option requires Analysis Group to explore any legal issues involved in the use of cookies. In summary, these options may raise technical and privacy issues that need to be cleared internally by Analysis Group. Consequently, this complication may add to the time for the surveys to be launched. Staff are seeking clarification from AG on the ETA to solve these technical/privacy issues. QUESTION: The need to get the surveys out ASAP/as many responses as possible thus needs to be weighed against the benefit of enabling respondents to save their responses/impact to the response rate. What does the Sub Team advise? Thank you for input! Best Regards, Mary, Julie, Ariel, Berry

3 4

Advice Needed: Complications Regarding Saving Survey Responses
by Ariel Liang Aug. 17, 2018

Aug. 17, 2018

Dear Data Sub Team members, Analysis Group is in process programming the surveys; the actual/potential registrant survey has already been pushed to the beta testing phase. A complication was discovered. Analysis Group informed staff that it is not possible to allow survey takers to “save” their responses and return to the surveys later to complete, unless the survey taker is given a login credential that can be validated. To create a login credential, the simplest way is for Analysis Group to obtain a list of email addresses of the individual survey takers. This, however, cannot be achieved given the outreach method that we are using to distribute the surveys (e.g., public links accessed via mailing lists, announcements, social media). Although GDD has the email contacts of registries and registrars, ICANN Org is not allowed to share the email contacts with Analysis Group directly due to the rightful use of these email contacts and associated legal/GDPR implications. Analysis Group is exploring other options/workarounds for survey takers to “save” their responses. One option is to allow users to create their own passwords, though it is difficult for Analysis Group to enforce unique password creation. They are experimenting with methods of suggesting unique passwords to users who would like to create a password. Another option is to distribute "cookies" with the survey, which will allow respondents to return to surveys that they have started. This option requires Analysis Group to explore any legal issues involved in the use of cookies. In summary, these options may raise technical and privacy issues that need to be cleared internally by Analysis Group. Consequently, this complication may add to the time for the surveys to be launched. Staff are seeking clarification from AG on the ETA to solve these technical/privacy issues. QUESTION: The need to get the surveys out ASAP/as many responses as possible thus needs to be weighed against the benefit of enabling respondents to save their responses/impact to the response rate. What does the Sub Team advise? Thank you for input! Best Regards, Mary, Julie, Ariel, Berry

2 2

Re: [Gnso-rpm-data] [Ext] Re: Close to Final Survey Questions - Comment by Thu 02 Aug 16:00 UTC
by Ariel Liang Aug. 5, 2018

Aug. 5, 2018

Hello Rebecca, Kristine, and all, Thank you, Rebecca and Kristine, for commenting on the Google Docs! We also forwarded Rebecca’s questions/comments below to AG and will pass their responses asap. As a gentle reminder -- other lead authors/interested Sub Team members please provide your comments/suggested edits on the Google docs by Thu, 02 Aug 16:00 UTC. Staff would like to highlight AG’s suggestion of letting respondents for the registrar, registry operator, and TM/band owner surveys choose which subsections of the surveys they would like to address. We have noted Rebecca’s concerns regarding whether respondents should choose vs. be randomly assigned to take different subsections of the survey. Sub Team members -- if you have any input/opinion about this point, please comment on the mailing list. Thank you, Mary, Julie, Ariel, and Berry From: "Tushnet, Rebecca" <rtushnet(a)law.harvard.edu> Date: Wednesday, August 1, 2018 at 1:01 PM 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] Close to Final Survey Questions - Comment by Thu 02 Aug 16:00 UTC I have made comments on the Google doc. Although I don't object to the new question about the respondent's employment status, I'm surprised that something was added, from my perspective, out of the blue. Who added it and why? Separately, let me reiterate that allowing respondents to choose is worse than randomly assigning them to a survey type where we are splitting the surveys, and if we're expanding that split then we should also randomize who gets which one in the other groups. I don't recall that we agreed to let respondents choose which branch of the survey they wanted to take. Rebecca Tushnet Frank Stanton Professor of First Amendment Law, Harvard Law School 703 593 6759 ________________________________ From: Gnso-rpm-data <gnso-rpm-data-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Ariel Liang <ariel.liang(a)icann.org> Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2018 11:18:18 AM To: gnso-rpm-data(a)icann.org Subject: [Gnso-rpm-data] Close to Final Survey Questions - Comment by Thu 02 Aug 16:00 UTC 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…<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_docume…> * Registrars (Lead: Susan Payne): https://docs.google.com/document/d/139E06nx1-dlkbTfQg7S9N_f3AZQ9Tr57RJKCTU2…<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/1ky5nRqI2VEHX3cWptYG5gAU1HMMRrLXf83f922R…<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/1UVVzM8lTSiMC7N89OoY8VWPbVg8KVb8N3xRQlZJ…<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_docume…> 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

3 8

Updated Survey Distribution Plans
by Ariel Liang Aug. 1, 2018

Aug. 1, 2018

Dear Data Sub Team members, Thank you all for the input to the survey distribution plans. Staff have contacted Brian, Lori, and GDD colleagues as per our action items, and please see the updated plans below, with revised items highlighted in yellow. Please comment on the list if you have any additional 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 * GDD is able to filter ROs based on their category (generic, community, brand, CoC exemption granted, legacy/new gTLD). Nevertheless, AG will still include a gating question, asking respondents to identify whether they are brand registries or not. If they identify as brand registries, terminate the survey OR redirect them to other surveys to complete * 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 * 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. They all have signed the 2013 RAA with ICANN * AG has confirmed that there a gating question in the Registrar Survey, asking respondents whether they offer any new gTLDs * 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 * 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 * AG to include in the cover note of the TM survey: smaller TM owners and law firms that represent smaller TM owner clients are encouraged to fill out the survey * ICANN Staff to contact the leadership of CSG/IPC/BC to request help distributing the survey to their membership & mailing list, stressing the outreach to smaller TM owners. * ICANN Staff to contact GSE team to request help distributing the survey to their relevant contact * Lori Schulman to help distribute the survey to INTA’s Data Protection and Internet Committees, and to socialize the survey with other groups in INTA as needed; Lori advised not to send an email blast to the entire INTA membership * 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 * Susan Payne to help distribute the survey to Cyberspace Team (MARQUES corollary) and the CITMA Internet Committee * Brian Beckham to help distribute the survey to ECTA: http://www.ecta.org/committees/detail/internet-committee * 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 the entire multistakeholder community to request help distributing the actual registrant survey. * ICANN Staff to contact GSE team to request help distributing the survey to their relevant contact * GDD has concerns about requesting help from Registrars to distribute the survey. Registrars may be concerned about this driving calls or inquires to their customer support teams which thus increases their operating expenses. To not hinder Registrars’ participation, AG will monitor the response rate and advise ICANN when to request help from Registrars as a last report option. GDD can contact a few smaller Registrars to request help. * 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 the entire multistakeholder community to request help distributing the potential registrant survey. * ICANN Staff to contact GSE team to request help distributing the survey to their relevant contact * GDD has concerns about requesting help from Registrars to distribute the survey. Registrars may be concerned about this driving calls or inquires to their customer support teams which thus increases their operating expenses. To not hinder Registrars’ participation, AG will monitor the response rate and advise ICANN when to request help from Registrars as a last report option. GDD can contact a few smaller Registrars to request help. * 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) * GNSO website announcement / homepage & GNSO Twitter: to be used to promote all surveys * ICANN.org announcement & ICANN Social Media channels (e.g., Twitter, Linkedin, Facebook): to be used to promote the actual/potential registrant surveys 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.

3 2

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