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

Actions & Notes: RPM Data Sub Team 15 June 2018
by Ariel Liang June 15, 2018

June 15, 2018

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

4 7

RPM Data Sub Team Meeting Options: Monday, 18 June
by Julie Hedlund June 15, 2018

June 15, 2018

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

3 2

Re: [Gnso-rpm-data] [Ext] RE: RPM Data Sub Team Meeting Options: Monday, 18 June
by Julie Hedlund June 15, 2018

June 15, 2018

Thanks Phil! Best, Julie From: "Corwin, Philip" <pcorwin(a)verisign.com> Date: Friday, June 15, 2018 at 3:30 PM To: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org>, Ariel Liang <ariel.liang(a)icann.org>, "gnso-rpm-data(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-data(a)icann.org> Subject: [Ext] RE: RPM Data Sub Team Meeting Options: Monday, 18 June Option 2 would work for me Philip S. Corwin Policy Counsel VeriSign, Inc. 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190 703-948-4648/Direct 571-342-7489/Cell "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: Gnso-rpm-data [mailto:gnso-rpm-data-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Julie Hedlund Sent: Friday, June 15, 2018 3:03 PM To: Ariel Liang <ariel.liang(a)icann.org>; gnso-rpm-data(a)icann.org Subject: [EXTERNAL] [Gnso-rpm-data] RPM Data Sub Team Meeting Options: Monday, 18 June Importance: High Hello everyone, As we noted on the call and per the notes below, several Sub Team members are not available at the suggested time of 17:00-18:30 UTC on Monday, 18 June, and for others the time is not ideal. Please let us know at your earliest convenience if you would be able to attend the call if it is moved to the any of the following options: OPTION 1: 1 hour earlier, to 16:00-17:30 UTC at 90 minutes OPTION 2: 1 hour earlier to 16:00-17:00 UTC at 60 minutes OPTION 3: 2 hours earlier to 15:00-16:30 UTC at 90 minutes Thank you very much for your assistance and please be on the lookout for a meeting notice on Sunday, or very early Monday. We hope you have a nice weekend! Best, Mary, Ariel, Berry, and Julie From: Gnso-rpm-data <gnso-rpm-data-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Ariel Liang <ariel.liang(a)icann.org> Date: Friday, June 15, 2018 at 2:56 PM To: "gnso-rpm-data(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-data(a)icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-rpm-data] Actions & Notes: RPM Data Sub Team 15 June 2018 Dear All, Please see below the action items and notes captured by staff from the Data Sub Team call held on 15 June 2018 (1600 UTC). Staff have posted to the wiki space the action items and notes. Please note that these will be high-level notes and are not meant as a substitute for the transcript or recording. The recording, AC chat, and attendance records are posted on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/x/ZYMpBQ [community.icann.org] Have a great weekend! Best Regards, Ariel Ariel Xinyue Liang Policy Analyst | Washington, DC Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) ---------------- ACTION ITEM Staff to ask Sub Team members’ availability to join the Monday, 18 June meeting at 17:00 UTC; if low availability, staff to propose an alternative time. (Done) NOTES Q2 2nd option: the first new gTLD was launched in July 2013, so change 3 years to 5 years If the following questions do not apply to the registrants, redirect them to the potential registrant survey section. Q2b Change 3 years to 5 years. Q2c Change 3 years to 5 years Q2e "If Yes, did you register the domain name for which you received a Claims Notice?" is a core question. We want to know why they went ahead despite receiving a Claims Notice. We want to know qualitatively why they did so. It goes with the same set of questions below. Same rationale may apply to the second time they receive the Claims Notice, or more. We spent a lot of time asking why people did NOT proceed, and there could be a lot of reasons. We do have a set of questions asking people why they DO proceed. If they did so, they may have made some serious decisions here, and we need to know why. Perhaps provide some multiple-choice options listing possible reasons why they proceed in order to dive deeper. Suggestions for options to be included in a multiple-choice question I would not be sued if I continued I would not be subject to an action to take the domain if I continued No one else had a legal right to the name I had legitimate or legal right to the domain It does not seem like too much trouble to continue I consulted with an attorney and it was fine I was committed to the domain name for person/business reasons It matched investments names I already own in a portfolio (going with "theme" registrants) I didn't understand the notice Something else [explain] There are portfolio registrants and they may have received many notices. May ask a quantitative question, "How many times this has happened to you?" and let them choose via multiple-choice options. Follow up with a question "For any of the domain name that you decide to proceed with registration, check all the reasons that apply". Bearing in mind that some people could have big portfolios. Is there anyway to encourage the survey taker to write a narrative and explain themselves? If we do get the response, it would be very helpful. Registrants with big portfolio might actually prefer a narrative option. Q2g There is an agreement to funnel this type of questions into potential registrant survey. Q2g(i) The structure is a bit confusing Need to be clear that this question should apply to anyone who is presented a Claims Notice, regardless whether he/she completed the registration or not Which of the following best describes your understanding of the purpose of the Claims Notice? Don’t know/Not sure -- we need a "what a heck" option there too Q2g(ii) – Q2h(i) Re virtue.food - oppose to specify as people may give a false hypothetical May want to specify "I plan to start a business or already have a business under that name" If we specify the business aspect, how would that help us? We don't know the background of the registrant why they proceed or not proceed. We don't know what the registrants are thinking, so we are asking them, at least we will get some insight and useful answers if we give them an example to think about. If we just give them a notice, they would not know what to do with that. We did give examples on other surveys to target non-expert. How do we know there is no brand using virtue.food. How do we know survey takers’ level of knowledge whether it would be an issue or not? We can ask clarifying questions at the end, but ask examples first to provide some context. You may need to place the “demographic” type of questions first to get into the mindset of the survey takers, and we can get a sense of the trend: Would you be nervous to register the domain name? -- provide options If yes, what actions would you take? -- provide options If no, what is the reason? -- provide options Does trademark law matter? Concerned if asking those questions first may have a bad effect on the survey takers, e.g., asking them about trademark law knowledge. It may be super hard to ask each survey taker to consider each scenario. Worth asking trademark only after asking some hypothetical questions, otherwise it would trigger some negative reaction. Don't need to limit this question for the people who have not completed the registration. Proposed new order: Show trademark claims notice. Q2g(iv) – confidence? Would you consult with an attorney? [maybe also “would you talk with domain name registrar, etc?] Q2h(i) – Why you abandoned? Q2g(iii) – trademark law knowledge We are making assumption that the user is going to assume the claims has something to do with the trademark. Most people don't know the difference between trademark and copyright. That's a mistake in the premise of each Q that the analysis group needs to resolve. Maybe this is the FIRST question and there is a matrix. so different paths of questioning need to be clarified... One possibility is to ask registrants what they imagine their use would be. If we will have enough respondents, we could sub group them. Those general Qs should appear after the more specific responses to virtue.food Q2h(i) We are asking why they did not proceed, and it is not with respect to virtue.food. Where are we asking them what they are doing with virtue.food? This question is for people who have abandoned. Everyone should be asked for this question. It is doubtful that we will get a lot of registrant that receives claims notice. Discussion about the open-ended questions Narrative responses can become cumbersome. It is fine to have a few in the survey, but the more complicated question is, the more loaded the responses would be. To have a lot of these questions would make it difficult for the respondent to respond, and can lower response rate and increase dropout rate. Some open text questions may be better for interview survey. Form survey would not have the opportunity to redirect the answer. Wide range of responses in open text field can make the analysis of the responses difficult and it would be hard to summarize the results in a simple way. There is difference between "Other___" and the larger open text field asking very open-ended question. Discussion about hypothetical questions Reference page 28-29 of the RFP Appendix regarding the comments for/against hypothetical questions Getting into use cases is different from hypothetical. There are general categories that people fall into. Give people the general categories. If we ask hypothetical questions of Registrants, I would like to return to TM/Brand owner survey to include some hypos. What would be the difference? I feel like that is a different kind of request for information. That would be something to ask in the design phase of a project not necessarily an evaluation phase. I'm ok with the page 29 scenario since we get an understanding of what the respondent is thinking when they answer. Consider the alternative to hypothetical listed on page 29 The questions about actual events and actions will provide metrics; hypos will prove opinions. We must somehow separate the two if we include them. Why the hypothetical question falls into the registrant survey? Q2g, Q2g(i), Q2g(ii) are inspired by the potential registrant survey questions. We want to know the set of people who register domain name, and when they see the trademark claims notices, what they are doing with them. To provide use cases is because it is hard for registrant to understand in the abstract. There is no way to ask such question without something to think about. The only way to get an answer to the question is by showing claims notice and see what they think. If you got a claims notice.... [Qs] AND here is a claims notice... [ Q] AG suggestion: Keep the hypo question for the potential registrant survey In the registrant survey, ask respondents did they receive claims survey, what they did to it, what was the purpose of their registration, etc. elicit the insight without providing a hypothetical scenario? Is it possible that most people taking the survey are legacy domain name registrants? We account for those potential respondents and try to filter them in the survey. It does not make a lot of sense to differentiate the registrants and potential registrants in two different surveys. There are a lot of overlapping paths. It should be one survey with branching paths. The people who said “I have received a claims notice, but didn't have the use case” should be given the opportunity to provide useful responses.

3 3

REMINDER: Proposed Agenda and Documents: Meeting 15 June at 1600 UTC
by Julie Hedlund June 15, 2018

June 15, 2018

Dear Data Sub Team Members, In preparation for today’s (Friday) meeting (15 June) at 16:00 UTC for 90 minutes, please see the proposed agenda and Google docs: 1. Review agenda 2. Discussion of the proposed Registrant survey questions and suggested changes by Analysis Group: https://docs.google.com/document/d/18K-zhP541IGCR0bXJpBtdmWdpfQ6BbKhFZaaZsf… 3. Discussion of the proposed Potential Registrant survey questions and suggested changes by Analysis Group: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1iY4KsWpioC8Sacs-pWurfnKxhOsiQA7YaSo1wux… 4. AOB Please also see attached the RFP appendix that includes the original questions as developed by the Sub Team, which is also uploaded on the agenda wiki page here: https://community.icann.org/x/FysFBQ [community.icann.org] Best Regards, Mary, Julie, Ariel, and Berry

1 0

Proposed Agenda and Documents: Meeting 15 June at 1600 UTC
by Julie Hedlund June 13, 2018

June 13, 2018

Dear Data Sub Team Members, In preparation for Friday’s meeting (15 June) at 16:00 UTC for 90 minutes, please see the proposed agenda and Google docs: 1. Review agenda 2. Discussion of the proposed Registrant survey questions and suggested changes by Analysis Group: https://docs.google.com/document/d/18K-zhP541IGCR0bXJpBtdmWdpfQ6BbKhFZaaZsf… 3. Discussion of the proposed Potential Registrant survey questions and suggested changes by Analysis Group: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1iY4KsWpioC8Sacs-pWurfnKxhOsiQA7YaSo1wux… 4. AOB Please also see attached the RFP appendix that includes the original questions as developed by the Sub Team, which is also uploaded on the agenda wiki page here: https://community.icann.org/x/FysFBQ [community.icann.org] Best Regards, Mary, Julie, Ariel, and Berry

1 0

Recordings, attendance & AC chat from Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) Sub Team for Data call on Wednesday, 13 June 2018
by Julie Bisland June 13, 2018

June 13, 2018

Dear All, Please find the attendance and AC chat of the call attached to this email, and the MP3 and AC recording below for the Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) Sub Team for Data call held Wednesday, 13 June 2018 at 16:00 UTC. Attendance of the call is also posted on the agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/YoMpBQ MP3: https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-rpm-review-data-13jun18-en.mp3 AC Recording: https://participate.icann.org/p1zyhuplbun/<https://participate.icann.org/p1zyhuplbun/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=a3029c3a5e9ca4be…> The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: https://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar [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 13 June 2018
by Ariel Liang June 13, 2018

June 13, 2018

Dear All, Please see below the action items and notes captured by staff from the Data Sub Team call held on 13 June 2018 (1600 UTC). Staff have posted to the wiki space the action items and notes. Please note that these will be high-level notes and are not meant as a substitute for the transcript or recording. The recording, AC chat, and attendance records are posted on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/x/YoMpBQ Please note that the staff action items have been completed (see below). Best Regards, Ariel Ariel Xinyue Liang Policy Analyst | Washington, DC Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) ---------------- ACTION ITEMS * Staff to check which Q4 sub question(s) address the same intent as Q12. (DONE) * Based on notes, Q4m seems to have similar intent as Q12. The Sub Team want to know the benefits and disadvantages if registries provider either the Claims Period or Sunrise Period, instead of both. AG would word this question similarly to Q4k. * Staff to check the notes related to the grid questions and see what the conclusion/outcome was. (DONE) * Based on notes, Sub Team suggested that similar grid questions asked to ROs should be asked to Registrars. The grid questions should also leave some open-ended options for respondents to provide narrative responses. The grid questions in the RO survey are Q16/Q17, as well as Q4i/Q4j in the registrar survey. AG would like to request the Sub Team to provide suggestions and include additional options to Q16/Q17 to the Google Doc. AG could maintain the grid format of the current questions, but to also include a separate question to elicit anecdotal responses. * Staff to circulate Berry’s information about the domain name registration process. (DONE) * Information from Berry: Registrant enters the domain at the Registrar where it is queried as to whether its available for registration. If the potential Registrant places the domain in the cart with intent of registering it, the Registry will also check if it appears on the Domain Names List (DNL). If it does, the Registry sends a CNIS code to the Registrar that notifies the Registrant of the claims notice. If registered, the Registrar returns a registration confirmation to the TMCH. This is reference to the TMCH Technical Specification as documented on IETF. * Kristine to review the grid questions (Q16/Q17 in RO survey, Q4i/Q4j and Q13/Q14 in registrar survey) and propose ideas to revise the grid. NOTES Registrar Survey Q12 * A sub question in Q4 captures the intent of this one, asking if there should be either sunrise or claims rather than both. Move that sub question down and replace Q12 with it? * ACTION ITEM: Staff to check which Q4 sub question(s) address the same intent. * Staff Comment: Based on notes, Q4m seems to have similar intent as Q12. The Sub Team want to know the benefits and disadvantages if registries provider either the Claims Period or Sunrise Period, instead of both. AG would word this question similarly to Q4k. Q13/Q14 * There are similar questions discussed in the Registry survey. Do these questions capture the original intent? * The grid format would need to be extrapolated across all the surveys. * ACTION ITEM: Staff to check the notes related to the grid questions and see what the conclusion/outcome was. * Staff Comment: Based on notes, Sub Team suggested that similar grid questions asked to ROs should be asked to Registrars. The grid questions should also leave some open-ended options for respondents to provide narrative responses. The grid questions in the RO survey are Q16/Q17, as well as Q4i/Q4j in the registrar survey. AG would like to request the Sub Team to provide suggestions and include additional options to Q16/Q17 to the Google Doc. AG could maintain the grid format of the current questions, but to also include a separate question to elicit anecdotal responses. * ACTION ITEM: Kristine to review the grid questions (Q16/Q17 in RO survey, Q4i/Q4j and Q13/Q14 in registrar survey) and propose ideas to revise the grid. Q15 * The original questions are to understand whether there is any impact to abandonment rate when the registrant receives claims notice. The original questions refer to the problems related to pre ordering domains. * Original questions are (page 10 – RFP Appendix): * Do you have any records of the “abandonment rate” (i.e., domain name applicants who request the registration of a particular domain but do not go through to complete the payment)? * If so, what are the rates of abandonment for legacy TLDs and ccTLDs? * What is the abandonment rate for a New gTLD during the Claims period – both for names which receive Claims Notices and those which do not? And after the Claims period? * We are trying to understand whether the claims notice is only triggered when someone is actually trying to pay for the domain. * Rephrase the question to: At what point during the purchase process is the claims notice downloaded? Use multiple choice or dropdown menu to provide options. * During Sunrise registration, the record of trademark would be downloaded. Claims notice would not trigger the download of anything. * Information from Berry: Registrant enters the domain at the Registrar where it is queried as to whether its available for registration. If the potential Registrant places the domain in the cart with intent of registering it, the Registry will also check if it appears on the Domain Names List (DNL). If it does, the Registry sends a CNIS code to the Registrar that notifies the Registrant of the claims notice. If registered, the Registrar returns a registration confirmation to the TMCH. This is reference to the TMCH Technical Specification as documented on IETF. * ACTION ITEM: Staff to circulate Berry’s information about the domain name registration process. * The registrar would not be downloading any trademark record, so the question is invalid. Eliminate Q15. * This question may be completely redundant. The only caveat is that we need to leave the door open for someone else to explore an alternative business model. If you code in too much in the policy/procedures, then you don't leave much room for expansion. * What is the most beneficial point? Or lease beneficial point? Why it matters when the claims notice is generated? Don't think we can get to "beneficial" because different models will answer differently. * Rephrase the question to: At what point of the registration process do you typically query whether the domain name is registered in the TMCH? * We are trying to understand the theoretical abandonment rate. Whether the query to the TMCH would trigger the generation of claims notice. We want to get at the typical process with regard to abandonment. We want to get at the functional problems. If there is standard process, registrants themselves are the ones that query. Q16 * Q16 is lumped together with Q15 * The sequence of event is not coming through clearly. This question should go before Q15. General Comment * Put all the claims related questions in one section and it would flow better. * There are no questions about “abandonment” in this survey at all. In the RFP Appendix, questions on page 10 to the first section of page 11 are to understand the abandonment rate and how abandonment happens. These questions also aim to elicit anecdotes. * AG asked similar questions to elicit data regarding abandonment rate during the TMCH review, but the respondents did not provide answers, hence they suggested to remove these questions. * If we aren't going to get abandonment data, could we ask people yes/no if they have/can/want to provide it (to keep the survey short for people who won't share this info or don't have it)? * AG agreed to provide respondents option if they want to do a deeper dive in the survey about abandonment rate. Those who are motivated and interested can contribute without turning others off.

1 0

Re: [Gnso-rpm-data] data call now
by Michael Graham (ELCA) June 13, 2018

June 13, 2018

Apologies - I have a work meeting I cannot reschedule so will be unable to attend call today. Michael r. From: Lori Schulman [mailto:lschulman@inta.org] Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2018 9:11 AM To: Susan Payne <susan.payne(a)valideus.com>; Michael Graham (ELCA) <migraham(a)expedia.com> Subject: RE: data call now Sorry. Having issues getting into Adobe from my laptop. I am using my mobile and it's hard to read the screen. Lori S. Schulman Senior Director, Internet Policy International Trademark Association (INTA) +1-202-704-0408, Skype: lsschulman From: Susan Payne [mailto:susan.payne@valideus.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2018 12:06 PM To: Lori Schulman <lschulman(a)inta.org<mailto:lschulman@inta.org>>; Michael Graham (ELCA) <migraham(a)expedia.com<mailto:migraham@expedia.com>> Subject: data call now Hi, are either of you able to join? At moment it's me, AG, Phil and staff. I think we're just finishing registrar section so not the end of the world S Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy | Valideus Ltd 28-30 Little Russell Street London, WC1A 2HN, United Kingdom 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 Liability cannot be accepted for statements made which are clearly the sender's own and not made on behalf of Valideus. This message is intended solely for the addressee and may contain confidential information. If you have received this message in error, please send it back to us, and immediately and permanently delete it. Do not use, copy or disclose the information contained in this message or in any attachment. Valideus Ltd is registered in England and Wales with company number 06181291 and VAT number 987 7551 49. Our registered office is at 28-30 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN.

2 1

Proposed Agenda and Documents: Meeting 13 June at 1600 UTC
by Julie Hedlund June 12, 2018

June 12, 2018

Dear Data Sub Team Members, In preparation for tomorrow’s meeting (13 June) at 16:00 UTC for 60 minutes, please see the proposed agenda and Google docs: 1. Review agenda 2. Discussion of the proposed Registrar survey questions and suggested changes by Analysis Group: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1sVyYahCcRY8HGoIXOO2kJXy48gQnsbms2xFeAbD… 3. AOB Please also see attached the RFP appendix that includes the original questions as developed by the Sub Team, which is also uploaded on the agenda wiki page here: https://community.icann.org/x/FysFBQ [community.icann.org] Best Regards, Mary, Julie, Ariel, and Berry

1 0

Re: [Gnso-rpm-data] [Ext] RE: Upcoming Meetings to Finalize the Surveys
by Julie Hedlund June 12, 2018

June 12, 2018

Yes, that’s right Susan – we should have made that clear and thanks for asking. Best, Julie From: Susan Payne <susan.payne(a)valideus.com> Date: Tuesday, June 12, 2018 at 8:04 AM To: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org>, "gnso-rpm-data(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-data(a)icann.org> Subject: [Ext] RE: Upcoming Meetings to Finalize the Surveys Thanks Julie So the call on Weds 20th replaces the full WG call? Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy | Valideus Ltd E: susan.payne(a)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 Julie Hedlund Sent: 12 June 2018 12:32 To: gnso-rpm-data(a)icann.org Subject: [Gnso-rpm-data] Upcoming Meetings to Finalize the Surveys Importance: High Dear Data Sub Team Members, Thanks to those who completed the Doodle. Although not everyone can join for all of the time slots, staff suggests that we proceed with the meeting times as suggested in the Doodle to ensure that we can finalize the remaining surveys. In addition, staff suggests adding a time slot on Monday, 18 June at 1700 UTC for 90 minutes. Please let us know if you cannot meet at that time. We think we may need this additional time as we still have 3 surveys to finalize (see links below). Here are the upcoming meeting times and suggested work items: Wednesday, 13 June, 1600 UTC, 60 minutes (reduced time to avoid conflicting with the Documents Sub Team) – Finalize Registrar survey Friday, 15 June, 1600 UTC, 90 minutes – Begin Registrants survey review Monday, 18 June, 1700 UTC, 90 minutes – Finalize Registranst survey; begin Potential Registrants survey review Wednesday, 20 June, 1700 UTC, 90 minutes – Finalize Potential Registrants survey Registrar survey: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1sVyYahCcRY8HGoIXOO2kJXy48gQnsbms2xFeAbD… [docs.google.com] Registrants survey: https://docs.google.com/document/d/18K-zhP541IGCR0bXJpBtdmWdpfQ6BbKhFZaaZsf… [docs.google.com] Potential Registrants survey: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1iY4KsWpioC8Sacs-pWurfnKxhOsiQA7YaSo1wux… [docs.google.com] Meeting notices will be sent out shortly. Thanks so much for your all your time and efforts! Best Regards, Mary, Julie, Ariel, and Berry

1 0

Upcoming Meetings to Finalize the Surveys
by Julie Hedlund June 12, 2018

June 12, 2018

Dear Data Sub Team Members, Thanks to those who completed the Doodle. Although not everyone can join for all of the time slots, staff suggests that we proceed with the meeting times as suggested in the Doodle to ensure that we can finalize the remaining surveys. In addition, staff suggests adding a time slot on Monday, 18 June at 1700 UTC for 90 minutes. Please let us know if you cannot meet at that time. We think we may need this additional time as we still have 3 surveys to finalize (see links below). Here are the upcoming meeting times and suggested work items: Wednesday, 13 June, 1600 UTC, 60 minutes (reduced time to avoid conflicting with the Documents Sub Team) – Finalize Registrar survey Friday, 15 June, 1600 UTC, 90 minutes – Begin Registrants survey review Monday, 18 June, 1700 UTC, 90 minutes – Finalize Registranst survey; begin Potential Registrants survey review Wednesday, 20 June, 1700 UTC, 90 minutes – Finalize Potential Registrants survey Registrar survey: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1sVyYahCcRY8HGoIXOO2kJXy48gQnsbms2xFeAbD… Registrants survey: https://docs.google.com/document/d/18K-zhP541IGCR0bXJpBtdmWdpfQ6BbKhFZaaZsf… Potential Registrants survey: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1iY4KsWpioC8Sacs-pWurfnKxhOsiQA7YaSo1wux… Meeting notices will be sent out shortly. Thanks so much for your all your time and efforts! Best Regards, Mary, Julie, Ariel, and Berry

2 1

Recordings, attendance & AC chat from Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) Sub Team for Data call on Monday, 11 June 2018
by Michelle DeSmyter June 11, 2018

June 11, 2018

Dear All, Please find the attendance and AC chat of the call attached to this email, and the MP3 and AC recording below for the Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) Sub Team for Data call held Monday, 11 June 2018 at 16:00 UTC. Attendance of the call is also posted on the agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/NC4FBQ MP3: https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-rpm-review-data-11jun18-en.mp3 AC Recording: https://participate.icann.org/p6ere7gb4uu/ The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: https://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_grou…> ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-data/ Main wiki page for the working group: https://community.icann.org/x/eI1EB [community.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_…> Thank you. Kind Regards, Michelle DeSmyter

1 0

Actions & Notes: RPM Data Sub Team 11 June 2018
by Ariel Liang June 11, 2018

June 11, 2018

Dear All, Please see below the action items and notes captured by staff from the Data Sub Team call held on 11 June 2018 (1600 UTC). Staff have posted to the wiki space the action items and notes. Please note that these will be high-level notes and are not meant as a substitute for the transcript or recording. The recording, AC chat, and attendance records are posted on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/x/NC4FBQ. Best Regards, Ariel Ariel Xinyue Liang Policy Analyst | Washington, DC Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) ---------------- ACTION ITEMS * Staff to send a reminder of the Doodle poll for additional Data Sub Team meeting (Wed 16:00 - 90 min or 60 min, Fri 16:00 - 90 min, next Wed, 17:00 UTC - 90 min). DONE * Staff to add the original numbering of the sub questions under Q4 on the Google Doc. DONE * Staff to check the notes with regard to the grid question in the RO survey (related to Registrar survey Q4i/Q4j). DONE Please see staff notes related to Q16/Q17 in the Registry survey: * Original questions are on page 3 of the RFP Appendix * Consider combining these two questions. * The questions don't cover the potential benefits if the sunrise period length is changed. The original questions not covered here are -- What were the benefits (to the registry or to brand owners)? What were the drawbacks? Were there any complaints or was anyone confused? (Include complaints from potential nonbrand owner registrants). * We cannot ask TM owners what benefit they are getting in this question. We are only asking ROs. Registrars may not be able to answer these questions with any degree of certainty. * It is difficult to come up with different options to make these questions more quantifiable. What Sub Team want to know is what they are missing. Why do some people want to extend the Sunrise period? It is hard to get the answer through a grid/tabulate format. Sub Team specifically try to elicit responses on how Sunrise period is impacted. Sub Team would like to know where the complaints went to and what they were. Sub Team are more concerned with the 25% of survey questions that are open ended. * AG would like to request the Sub Team to provide suggestions and include additional questions/options to Q16/Q17 to the Google Doc. * AG could maintain the grid format of the current questions, but to also include a separate question to elicit anecdotal responses. It may be helpful to also include questions eliciting "yes, no, maybe" type of responses. * ROs don't have much of the technical costs of Sunrise. It's the registrars that have most of the technical costs. There are also marketing issues related to the sunrise. * It may be helpful to have a couple of Sub Team members preview the survey and see how the questions work. * AG to check whether the question about how long ROs ran Sunrise period for is included in the RO survey. * AG to reference the original questions and redraft Registrar survey Q7-10 to capture the intent. * Susan to check what alternative word to "offer" is appropriate in Registrar survey Q4 * Sub Team to continue working on the Registrar survey from Q12 in the next call NOTES TM Survey Q6a * Sub Team agree with the revised bands Susan suggested Q30 * AG makes this a gateway question. If respondent answers yes, then he/she will proceed to Q31; If answers no, terminate the survey. Q31 * Replace the last "and" with "to" * This question seems to lead respondents to answer "yes"; need to stripe out the suggested "yes" answer. * Rephrase the question to “Do you believe the protection of trademarks should be broadened to include variance of trademarks?” or something to that effect. * Don't think we should simply ask "yes" or "no". We want to ask “Do you have any evidence that the broadening of the comparison basis to include variances of trademarks is useful to protect the rights of TM owners and domain name applicants?” We try to get more than just loaded opinions, and that's the point of asking for evidence. Suggest going back to the language of the original question. * Provide an open text field to allow the respondents to provide more narrative answers. Add "if yes, please explain why the benefit would outweigh the false positive?" * Other respondent groups should be asked this question as well. * AG suggested to use a slightly shorter version of the question. The wording of "How likely do you think..." could be less prone to leading the respondents. Include a scale and an open text field for respondents to provide their rationale. Could also include some examples to guide the respondents. * Even with a scale, it is still soliciting unsupported opinion. We need the respondents to provide justifications based on experience/evidence. Instead of a scale, add a sub question "If yes/no, please provide evidence". The purpose is to shed light on concrete information, examples, and evidence. Scale might be more readable but if evidence is goal, we need specifics not "temperature". General Comments * Responses can be included in public facing document even if the respondents' identities are anonymized Registrar Survey Q3 * This question should be limited to new gTLDs. Registrars can offer hundreds of TLDs but not necessarily new gTLDs * Are these bands accurate? Add a couple of more between 1-100? 500+ seems like a good top band; splitting the middle band to 101-250 and 251-500 seems reasonable. * Treat this question as a gating question. If registrars answer "none" then the rest of the survey would be irrelevant to them. It is relevant to ask respondents why they don't offer to sale any new gTLDs, so add "If none, why” as a sub question. Q4 * Sub Team agree with Susan's comments/edits. This question would guide the WG to understand what went well for Sunrise, what not. * ACTION ITEM: Susan to check what alternative word to "offer" is appropriate. * ACTION ITEM: AG to check whether the question about how long ROs ran Sunrise period for is included in the RO survey. Q4b * We do want to know registrars' experience and perspective about the length of the Sunrise period. * Did you encounter Sunrises longer than 30 days or longer than 60 days? Start Date and End Date Sunrises have different durations and are different animals. The Sub Team mostly want to know whether anyone ran a super long Sunrise period. * Perhaps ask approximately how many Sunrise period of new gTLDs that Registrars encountered have 30 days, 60 days, 90 days, or longer? * ICANN staff already have the information about the length of Sunrise period from ROs. Staff data includes Start/End Date Sunrise, duration, extremely long claims window for some gTLDs, etc. * Potentially jettison this question. Q4c/Q4d * Start/End Date Sunrises are quite different beasts. Contractual requirement is at least 30-day notice for Start Date Sunrise. Sub Team want to know if any registrar was given shorter notice than the contractual requirement. For End Date Sunrise, there is no contractual requirement to give any advance notice. * Get some info from registrars about how much in advance they got notice. It could correlate with the data we already have. * Use a metric/grid for these questions? Multiple choices may work better than a grid. Maybe no grid here because of the nature of the two different Sunrises. * Potentially jettison these two questions as staff data provides answers. Q4e * Need to ask for each type of Sunrise. Greg's question has been addressed here. * Would it be more useful to ask "Was the advance notice you received adequate?” “What is the amount of time for advance notice that worked well, and why?” Need to get to the "why" to understand the impact. What was the problem that caused the Sunrise period to be extended? Add "please explain why" and provide an open text field; * AG to keep track of open text fields in the survey and put it as a placeholder and revisit if the survey is getting too long. Q4f * If respondents answer yes, what do we do with that information? Does it matter to the registrars? If not, do we need this question? It is quite difficult to change the duration of a Sunrise period when already underway, based on anecdotal experience. Q4g/Q4h * Transform the questions into a grid: 1-2 days - sufficient (yes/no?); 2-4 days sufficient (yes/no?)... * Adjust the bands, e.g., 1-2 days, 2-7 days, 8-14 days, 15+ days. Q4i/Q4j * These questions relate to the RO survey. Whatever we ask the ROs should be asked to the Registrars. Try using a grid here as long as we leave some open-ended option. * We need more input from registries to understand any issue related to marketing, the cost of rollout interruption, etc. * ACTION ITEM: Staff to check the notes with regard to the grid question in the RO survey. Q4k * Sub Team agree with the additional bullet points suggested by Susan. Q4l * Defer to AG for the placement of this question. Q4m * We want to know the benefits and disadvantages. Ask something later on about pros/cons, and park this question and move it down? * AG would word this question similarly to Q4k. Q5 * Q5 needs to move down to the claims section. * We do not only want to ask question about abandonment after receiving the trademark notices. We are not ruling out the idea of a general question. Respondents might be willing to provide info on other aspects that caused abandonment. * If we ask any other types of abandonment, the question needs to be separated out, and respondents are welcome to express their concerns about business trade secrets, operation effectiveness, business model limitations, etc. Leave it open ended for respondents to voice their concerns. Q6 * Q6 needs to move down to the claims section. * Respondents can select more than one option in the dropdown menu. Q7, Q8, Q9, Q10 * ACTION ITEM: AG to reference the original questions and redraft these questions to capture the intent. * Original questions: * Have you had feedback from your customers regarding their experiences with registry reserved names in the context of that registry’s Sunrise – positive or negative (for example, regarding names matching a trade mark being unavailable for registration or only available at a premium price) * How do you get notified of registry reserved names? Do you have experience that the advance TMCH notice is either adequate or inadequate? * Do you have any comments on the proposal that registries should publish their lists of reserved names? * Some in the Community have suggested that if a registry plans to release reserved names for registration they should be offered first to trademark owners with a mark in the TMCH. What would be the challenges, if any, to doing so, from a technical, operational or other perspective? Would there be a way to do this which would be less problematic? or more so? Consider for example multiple Sunrises, a right of first refusal, or some other process. If you have positive or negative experiences from the process when names collision names were released from reservation that you can share to illustrate your response please do so. Q10 * Revamp the grid completely? * We are interested in learning whether TM owners should have an opportunity to secure the released names even if the Sunrise period has finished. We want to ask what the benefits to/challenges for registrars are. Likert scale would not work. Anecdotes are needed. * Registries could put as many reserved names as they like. Various registrars would understand the question in different ways. There are technical, operational, administrative hassles if there is a rolling Sunrise period. There could be notification problem. Some ROs release names for different purposes and release names to a specific brand not to the public. There are a lot of baggage in this question. * Use the bullet points in Q4k as a starting point: * No effect * Reduced operating cost * Increased operating cost * Reduced technical requirements * Increased technical requirements * Reduced admin * Increased admin * Reduced customer understanding * Increased customer understanding * reduced volume of sunrise sales * increased volume of sunrise sales * Other: [OPEN TEXT FIELD] * Don't know/Not sure Q11 * Redraft the question to provide respondents an opportunity to explain "why" and understand what the real issue is. General Comments * At the end of each survey section, provide a place to let respondents leave any general comment and tell 'horror/war stories'.

1 0

REMINDER: Doodle Poll re: Scheduling Additional Data Sub Team Meetings
by Julie Hedlund June 11, 2018

June 11, 2018

Dear RPM Data Sub Team members, This is a reminder – staff notes that the Doodle doesn’t allow for a “maybe” option, but please include a note if you may be able to attend. Note also the overlap with the URS Documents Sub Team call on Wednesday at 1700 UTC by 30 minutes. Please add a note if you will need to join that call so we can determine whether to run the Data Sub Team call for 60 or 90 minutes. Per the following action item below, “Staff to Doodle additional call times for the next two weeks, including Wednesdays and Fridays” please take the Doodle poll below at your earliest convenience: Doodle Poll: https://doodle.com/poll/mzxys4cqguq8g5au Notes: The times should automatically align with your time zone. Although we have already scheduled a call on Monday, 11 June for 120 minutes, we did not determine availability for that call, so we are including it in the poll. We also are limiting times and days (Wednesdays and Friday) to those that have typically worked for most Sub Team members previously. We can introduce other times as necessary. After Monday’s meeting we are suggesting calls for 90 minutes and we can reduce the Monday call to 90 minutes if preferable. There is a URS Documents Sub Team call already scheduled for Wednesday, 13 June at the usual WG time of 1700 UTC so there will be some overlap if we run the call for 90 minutes starting at 1600 UTC. For 20 June we are suggesting using the slot at the regular time for the full WG (1700 UTC), but this can be adjusted if it is determined that there is a need for a full WG meeting. We are not scheduling on Friday, 22 June as people will likely be traveling for ICANN62. Thank you very much and please do let us know if you would like us to change any aspects of the poll. Kind regards, Mary, Ariel, Berry, and Julie From: Gnso-rpm-data <gnso-rpm-data-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org> Date: Thursday, June 7, 2018 at 2:27 PM To: "gnso-rpm-data(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-data(a)icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-rpm-data] Action Items from RPM Data Sub Team Meeting 07 June Dear RPM Data Sub Team members, Thank you very much to all of you who participated in today’s call. Here are the action items staff captured: Action Items: Sub Team to use the Friday meeting to work on the TM/Brand Owner survey Staff to Doodle additional call times for the next two weeks, including Wednesdays and Fridays Sub Team to continue providing redline comments/suggested edits on the Google Doc, led by the original author of each survey : Registry Operators: https://docs.google.com/document/d/13atDQ54Sf3ICNn1-thaSldhxB8XwCAq5w7lXiyp… Registrars: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1sVyYahCcRY8HGoIXOO2kJXy48gQnsbms2xFeAbD… TM/Brand Owners: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1yWzLPfI9o0D3vD09Nf8zudcLF4sChl4dvMV_fyg… Registrants: https://docs.google.com/document/d/18K-zhP541IGCR0bXJpBtdmWdpfQ6BbKhFZaaZsf… Potential Registrants: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1iY4KsWpioC8Sacs-pWurfnKxhOsiQA7YaSo1wux… Staff will follow up with the brief notes that were captured and also post them to the wiki. Best regards, Mary, Ariel, Berry and Julie

1 0

Proposed Agenda and Documents: Meeting 11 June at 1600 UTC
by Julie Hedlund June 11, 2018

June 11, 2018

Dear Data Sub Team Members, In preparation for today’s (11 June) meeting at 16:00 UTC for 120 minutes, please see the proposed agenda and Google docs: 1. Review agenda 2. Discussion of the proposed TM/Brand Owners survey questions and suggested changes by Analysis Group: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1yWzLPfI9o0D3vD09Nf8zudcLF4sChl4dvMV_fyg… 3. Discussion of the proposed Registrar survey questions and suggested changes by Analysis Group: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1sVyYahCcRY8HGoIXOO2kJXy48gQnsbms2xFeAbD… 4. AOB Please also see attached the RFP appendix that includes the original questions as developed by the Sub Team, which is also uploaded on the agenda wiki page here: https://community.icann.org/x/FysFBQ [community.icann.org] Best Regards, Mary, Julie, Ariel, and Berry

4 3

Re: [Gnso-rpm-data] [Ext] RE: Proposed Agenda and Documents: Meeting 11 June at 1600 UTC
by Julie Hedlund June 11, 2018

June 11, 2018

Thank you very much Susan! Best, Julie From: Susan Payne <susan.payne(a)valideus.com> Date: Monday, June 11, 2018 at 10:29 AM To: "gnso-rpm-data(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-data(a)icann.org> Cc: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org> Subject: [Ext] RE: [Gnso-rpm-data] Proposed Agenda and Documents: Meeting 11 June at 1600 UTC On our last call I offered to check he proposed bands in the following question (TM owner survey) with my colleagues at Com Laude: Q65a. [IF “Yes”] How many trademarks have you applied to register as domain names in a New gTLD during a Sunrise Period? [MULTIPLE CHOICE] 1 2-5 6-10 11-20 21-30 31-50 50+ Based on their input, I would suggest we use something like the following: 1 2-5 6-10 11-50 51-100 101-500* 500+ *we could split this into two bands if preferred Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy | Valideus Ltd E: susan.payne(a)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 Julie Hedlund Sent: 11 June 2018 14:25 To: gnso-rpm-data(a)icann.org Subject: [Gnso-rpm-data] Proposed Agenda and Documents: Meeting 11 June at 1600 UTC Dear Data Sub Team Members, In preparation for today’s (11 June) meeting at 16:00 UTC for 120 minutes, please see the proposed agenda and Google docs: 1. Review agenda 2. Discussion of the proposed TM/Brand Owners survey questions and suggested changes by Analysis Group: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1yWzLPfI9o0D3vD09Nf8zudcLF4sChl4dvMV_fyg… [docs.google.com] 3. Discussion of the proposed Registrar survey questions and suggested changes by Analysis Group: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1sVyYahCcRY8HGoIXOO2kJXy48gQnsbms2xFeAbD… [docs.google.com] 4. AOB Please also see attached the RFP appendix that includes the original questions as developed by the Sub Team, which is also uploaded on the agenda wiki page here: https://community.icann.org/x/FysFBQ [community.icann.org] Best Regards, Mary, Julie, Ariel, and Berry

1 0

Actions & Notes: RPM Data Sub Team 08 June 2018
by Ariel Liang June 9, 2018

June 9, 2018

Dear All, Please see below the action items and notes captured by staff from the Data Sub Team call held on 08 June 2018 (1700 UTC). Staff have posted to the wiki space the action items and notes. Please note that these will be high-level notes and are not meant as a substitute for the transcript or recording. The recording, AC chat, and attendance records are posted on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/x/Mi4FBQ. Have a great weekend! Best Regards, Ariel Ariel Xinyue Liang Policy Analyst | Washington, DC Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) ---------------- ACTION ITEMS * Staff to report to IT about the AC freezing issue that Lori experienced. * Staff to identify the target respondents for the TM survey, taking into consideration the outside/inside counsel who may fill out this survey. * Lori to reference the INTA survey and provide input to Q3, with the aim to elicit information on business volume. * Susan/Kristine to help revise Q6/Q6a to include more appropriate bands. * Sub Team to finish TM survey and review the Registrar survey on Monday, 11 June. Susan to provide redline comments/edits in the Google Doc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1sVyYahCcRY8HGoIXOO2kJXy48gQnsbms2xFeAbD… NOTES General Comments * The acronyms in the survey questions should be spelt out. * INTA members are suffering PTSD from the New gTLD Cost Survey. Lori is not sure whether INTA will agree to distribute the survey, but can distribute to its Internet and Data Protection Committees. Any other distribution outside of that scope will need INTA executive approval. Lori could also send to MARQUES and CITMA internet committees and ask them to circulate. Others in the Sub Team may be able to do same? Q1/Q2 * Brands themselves may not be able to answer these questions. Allow the brands to forward the questions to the right respondents (e.g., outside counsel or source) who can answer, but be mindful of the additional time it could take. * If ICANN distribute this survey to the IPC, these questions would go to the outside counsel. Perhaps include a tick box for respondents to check whether they are inside counsel or outside counsel. Q3 * Does the survey include any question for respondents to indicate the size of their business (e.g., small/medium/large companies)? There are questions about how many TM registrations the companies hold. Maybe beneficial to ask where the TM is registered. * 50+ TMs is NOT a large portfolio. A tiny company with 3 brands (and word and design marks) can easily hit 50 registrations. The size of TM portfolio does not necessarily correlate to the size of the business. * We do get into portfolio size when we determine how many Sunrise registrations they went for as a percentage of portfolio size. * Make Trademark Ownership (not outside counsel) a threshold question. * ACTION ITEM: Lori to reference the INTA survey and provide input to Q3, with the aim to elicit information on the business volume. * ACTION ITEM: Staff to identify the target respondents for the TM survey, taking into consideration the outside/inside counsel who may fill out this survey. Q4/Q4a/Q4b * The sub questions should only be answered if the respondents have participated in the TMCH/Sunrise. Include a trigger/threshold question. if the respondents say "no" in the previous question, they don't need to answer the following questions. * Even if there are no records of the registered trademarks in the TMCH, we may still want to ask respondents whether they have filed a UDRP. * Asking whether they filed a UDRP may go beyond the scope of the survey. * Are the right people using the Sunrise & Claims RPMs? If they indicate it is just simpler to use the URS or UDRP, it is a useful answer. Support to develop questions designed to elicit those responses. * Suggest including the “If you did not record your TM, why not?” as Q4b. Since 4b really terminates the survey, or almost terminates the survey, we can ask for more elaboration as to why. * Some TM holders may rely on a watching service through an outside counsel. Provide an open text field for them to elaborate. * Would it be helpful to specify the likely reasons why people do not record any TM with the TMCH? Q5 * Agree with Kristine's comments. Some clients put the marks in the TMCH because they want to use some of its services, not because of Sunrise. * Agree with including Susan's suggestions. Good general categories to include as options. Q5a * 50+ TM could capture a whole slew of companies, including small companies. We segmented on volume of business not size of portfolios. Portfolios do not always correspond to size of business. Large portfolio is not necessarily owned by large businesses; it really depends. Brand owners usually put 2-3 marks of the highest value in the TMCH. You do not have owners put dozens of marks in the TMCH. The number of TMs a company has also does not correlate to the number of marks in the TMCH and does not correlate to the number of Sunrise registrations they've opted for. * Either the TM owner or its Service Providers can provide the TMCH recordation and other numbers easily and quickly. * Kristine's suggestion for “some/most/all” would be more relevant. * Suggest asking what percentage of respondents’ TMs are participating in Sunrise to provide an idea of scale. This would help the WG to see how the bands look like. Maybe “some/most/all” is a bit vague. * A percentage would be an estimate. People will guess, and we are not going to get exact numbers either way. * If we ask for percentage, the risk is that the person filling out the survey may just quit rather than calling someone or looking it up. * If such an easy thing sends respondents away, do we really want or can we trust their other answers? Not sure how really relevant it is to get this data. * Provide the options to make it a little easier for people to answer. Q6/Q6a * The original draft question does not ask how many TMs have been recorded. It asks how many domain names have been registered as a result of the Sunrise. * For brands like Amazon, they may have one mark in the TMCH, but have registered many more domain names. * Companies would have a clear idea how many domains they bought during the Sunrise period. Be clear which question we are asking. * These bands are probably appropriate, although some companies may have more than 50 recordation. * We won't know if our top answer is 50. There should be a 500+. And we should consider if the brand owner will amalgamate them. For one mark, a brand owner might register DNs in 200 Sunrises. And for a different mark, might register DNs in 200 different Sunrises. So that's two marks, 400 different Sunrises. So what should that brand owner answer? 200 (max DNs for mark 1) or 400 (max DNs total). * We need a revised Bands. MM, CSC or Corsearch might have ideas about this. Corsearch is affiliated with Com Laude. * ACTION ITEM: Susan/Kristine to help revise Q6/Q6a to include more appropriate bands. Q7 * Some respondents may check every single one of these reasons. Not sure whether it would be helpful. * For big companies, they may tick all the options. Smaller entities may have fewer reasons. How they answer this question depends on their business volume/TM portfolio. * Maybe we ask respondents to rank the reasons? * A likert scale sounds like a good way to collect the information. Likert scale for each reason, or ask respondents to rank one reason against another. * Have we talked about adding availability of UDRP and URS as part of the thought processes on this question? Kathy added that to the question. * No agreement to add the UDRP/URS related reason. TM holders always have the opportunity to participate in UDRP/URS. They participate in Sunrise because they can deal with UDRP/URS later. Q8/Q8a/Q8b * To understand pricing is important to this Sub Team. We should get a grid or metric to understand that information. * Convert the question to likert scale for respondents to indicate how important pricing is in their decisions? Or include multiple choice options for respondents to indicate how frequently the pricing factor affect their decisions in participating in Sunrise period? * If the price of Sunrise is higher than the cost of UDRP or URS, that would be part of the consideration. Price of Sunrise should be part of the calculus. * No agreement to add UDRP/URS related edits in Q8b. Calling out UDRP and URS is dangerous. Price for Sunrise is going to be balanced against the value of the trademark. It is going to balanced against many other costs (e.g., UDRP, URS, watch list, litigation). It would open a can of worms. We should try to keep the metrics slightly high level. We should not start guessing all the price variables. Q9 * Merge with Q8 to reflect the two different aspects. Q10/Q11/Q11a * Keep these questions. Many brand owners can answer these questions. There may be some outliers that registered so many domain names and don’t have a handle on this. Many other TM owners would know. * Make these questions optional, so the people who can/want to answer would answer. * Ask what the most outrageous pricing situation is, with an open text field. People do want to tell their horror stories. Not good to ask what TM holders paid for the registration, but ask in a way that could generate useful responses. Is there a price the brand owner didn’t want to pay for the registration? What is the extreme price that the TM owners are unwilling to pay? * The price the brand is willing to pay depends on the value of the brand. Asking anecdote is a good option. We want people to highlight things that they are willing to tell. Don’t use the word ‘extreme’. Leave the question open ended and get the story, without limiting too much. * The price the brand is willing to pay may also depend on the gTLD. For example, the base price of .luxury was 10K. If you register domains in the Sunrise period it is 20K. It is an issue that we want to tease out in this question. * There is notable Sunrise period that TM holders have to pay more (discriminatory pricing). * Registry was setting the base price, not the registrar. Although some registrars did charge quite large mark ups on top. Some did not. * Both sides of the equation try to game the system. We want to find out in this pricing mechanism, has there been any unfair play. * If you are a small business you could more easily figure out what service to spend money on. Some charitable brand may spend more on Sunrise than Fortune 50 brands. * We are trying to get complicated information, so asking anecdotal experience would be the best option here. * Agree to add the suggested edit “in that gTLD” in Q11a. Q17 * Remove this question as it has been asked multiple times. Q18 * Include a reminder of Sunrise Period Registration in the intro. Q19 * Agree to drop the question. It implies legal matter and could be a leading question. * Disagree with dropping this question. * Michael added options in Q19ai and Q19b to elicit more information from respondents. Having options rather than open text fields (where possible) can make the survey much easier for respondents. Also, offering options can give respondents an idea for what types of responses you are eliciting. * Alternative options for Q19a: Yes, no, don't know, explain? Q25 * Agree with the Kristine’s suggestion. Move it to the end of the survey if we keep this question. Q29/Q29a/Q29b/Q29c/Q29d * Q29a looks at NORNs, Q29b proceedings, Q29c not exact matches, Q29d variants. * We want to know whether an enforcement effort has been taken, or people go to the extent of litigation. * Are your exact matches exact enough to trigger NORNs? * Just because proceedings are brought doesn’t mean it is reasonable or helpful. Is this question an overkill? Maybe it is better to ask what UDRP/URS court cases that TM holders have been involved in, what are the results and what they feel about them? * TM owners won’t give you confidential information. We can ask “How many proceedings have you brought? How many have been successful?”

3 2

Recordings, attendance & AC Chat from Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) Sub Team for Data call on Friday, 08 June 2018 at 16:00 UTC
by Michelle DeSmyter June 8, 2018

June 8, 2018

Dear All, Please find the attendance and AC chat of the call attached to this email, and the MP3 and AC recording below for the Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) Sub Team for Data call held Friday, 08 June 2018 at 16:00 UTC. Attendance of the call is also posted on the agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/Mi4FBQ MP3: https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-rpm-review-data-08jun18-en.mp3 AC Recording: https://participate.icann.org/p9sce826sgm/ The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: https://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_grou…> ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-data/ Main wiki page for the working group: https://community.icann.org/x/eI1EB [community.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_…> Thank you. Kind Regards, Michelle DeSmyter

1 0

Re: [Gnso-rpm-data] [Ext] RE: Doodle Poll re: Scheduling Additional Data Sub Team Meetings
by Julie Hedlund June 8, 2018

June 8, 2018

Thanks so much Kristine for letting us know. Best, Julie From: "Dorrain, Kristine" <dorraink(a)amazon.com> Date: Thursday, June 7, 2018 at 9:28 PM To: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org>, "gnso-rpm-data(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-data(a)icann.org> Subject: [Ext] RE: [Gnso-rpm-data] Doodle Poll re: Scheduling Additional Data Sub Team Meetings Thanks Julie! I will be on tomorrow for the first 90 minutes as I have an avoidable conflict during the last 30 minutes. Best, Kristine From: Gnso-rpm-data [mailto:gnso-rpm-data-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Julie Hedlund Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2018 4:40 PM To: gnso-rpm-data(a)icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-rpm-data] Doodle Poll re: Scheduling Additional Data Sub Team Meetings All, Sorry there is no “maybe” option on the poll. I’m not sure how I missed adding that option, but if a time is a maybe for you, please just add a note. Apologies for the inconvenience! Best, Julie From: Gnso-rpm-data <gnso-rpm-data-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org> Date: Thursday, June 7, 2018 at 6:44 PM To: "gnso-rpm-data(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-data(a)icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-rpm-data] Doodle Poll re: Scheduling Additional Data Sub Team Meetings Dear RPM Data Sub Team members, Per the following action item below, “Staff to Doodle additional call times for the next two weeks, including Wednesdays and Fridays” please take the Doodle poll below at your earliest convenience: Doodle Poll: https://doodle.com/poll/mzxys4cqguq8g5au [doodle.com] Notes: The times should automatically align with your time zone. Although we have already scheduled a call on Monday, 11 June for 120 minutes, we did not determine availability for that call, so we are including it in the poll. We also are limiting times and days (Wednesdays and Friday) to those that have typically worked for most Sub Team members previously. We can introduce other times as necessary. After Monday’s meeting we are suggesting calls for 90 minutes and we can reduce the Monday call to 90 minutes if preferable. There is a URS Documents Sub Team call already scheduled for Wednesday, 13 June at the usual WG time of 1700 UTC so there will be some overlap if we run the call for 90 minutes starting at 1600 UTC. For 20 June we are suggesting using the slot at the regular time for the full WG (1700 UTC), but this can be adjusted if it is determined that there is a need for a full WG meeting. We are not scheduling on Friday, 22 June as people will likely be traveling for ICANN62. Thank you very much and please do let us know if you would like us to change any aspects of the poll. Kind regards, Mary, Ariel, Berry, and Julie From: Gnso-rpm-data <gnso-rpm-data-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org> Date: Thursday, June 7, 2018 at 2:27 PM To: "gnso-rpm-data(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-data(a)icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-rpm-data] Action Items from RPM Data Sub Team Meeting 07 June Dear RPM Data Sub Team members, Thank you very much to all of you who participated in today’s call. Here are the action items staff captured: Action Items: Sub Team to use the Friday meeting to work on the TM/Brand Owner survey Staff to Doodle additional call times for the next two weeks, including Wednesdays and Fridays Sub Team to continue providing redline comments/suggested edits on the Google Doc, led by the original author of each survey : Registry Operators: https://docs.google.com/document/d/13atDQ54Sf3ICNn1-thaSldhxB8XwCAq5w7lXiyp… [docs.google.com] Registrars: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1sVyYahCcRY8HGoIXOO2kJXy48gQnsbms2xFeAbD… [docs.google.com] TM/Brand Owners: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1yWzLPfI9o0D3vD09Nf8zudcLF4sChl4dvMV_fyg… [docs.google.com] Registrants: https://docs.google.com/document/d/18K-zhP541IGCR0bXJpBtdmWdpfQ6BbKhFZaaZsf… [docs.google.com] Potential Registrants: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1iY4KsWpioC8Sacs-pWurfnKxhOsiQA7YaSo1wux… [docs.google.com] Staff will follow up with the brief notes that were captured and also post them to the wiki. Best regards, Mary, Ariel, Berry and Julie

1 0

Google Doc: Proposed Agenda and Documents: Meeting 08 June at 1600 UTC
by Julie Hedlund June 8, 2018

June 8, 2018

All, Please see the updated Google doc for the TM/Brand Owners survey from Michael Graham: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1yWzLPfI9o0D3vD09Nf8zudcLF4sChl4dvMV_fyg…. We’ll use this as our reference for the meeting later today. Best, Mary, Ariel, Berry, and Julie From: Gnso-rpm-data <gnso-rpm-data-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org> Date: Thursday, June 7, 2018 at 2:30 PM To: "gnso-rpm-data(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-data(a)icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-rpm-data] Proposed Agenda and Documents: Meeting 08 June at 1600 UTC Dear Data Sub Team Members, In preparation for tomorrow’s (08 June) meeting at 16:00 UTC for 120 minutes, please see the proposed Sunrise & Claims survey questions from the Analysis Group in the following Google docs for discussion and comment: Registry Operators: https://docs.google.com/document/d/13atDQ54Sf3ICNn1-thaSldhxB8XwCAq5w7lXiyp… Registrars: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1sVyYahCcRY8HGoIXOO2kJXy48gQnsbms2xFeAbD… TM/Brand Owners: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1yWzLPfI9o0D3vD09Nf8zudcLF4sChl4dvMV_fyg… Registrants: https://docs.google.com/document/d/18K-zhP541IGCR0bXJpBtdmWdpfQ6BbKhFZaaZsf… Potential Registrants: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1iY4KsWpioC8Sacs-pWurfnKxhOsiQA7YaSo1wux… Please see the proposed agenda for today’s meeting: 1. Review agenda 2. Discussion of the proposed TM/Brand Owners survey questions and suggested changes by Analysis Group 3. AOB Please also see attached the RFP appendix that includes the original questions as developed by the Sub Team, which is also uploaded on the agenda wiki page here: https://community.icann.org/x/FysFBQ [community.icann.org] Best Regards, Mary, Julie, Ariel, and Berry

1 0

FW: Trademark Holders Survey - Clean (2018.06.05) Revised by MRG 6/8/18
by Michael Graham (ELCA) June 8, 2018

June 8, 2018

mchaelgraham2(a)gmail.com<mailto:mchaelgraham2@gmail.com> has shared a link to the following document: Trademark Holders Survey - Clean (2018.06.05)<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1yWzLPfI9o0D3vD09Nf8zudcLF4sChl4dvMV_fyg…> Open in Docs<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1yWzLPfI9o0D3vD09Nf8zudcLF4sChl4dvMV_fyg…> Google Docs: Create and edit documents online. Google LLC, 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043, USA You have received this email because someone shared a document with you from Google Docs.

1 0

Doodle Poll re: Scheduling Additional Data Sub Team Meetings
by Julie Hedlund June 7, 2018

June 7, 2018

Dear RPM Data Sub Team members, Per the following action item below, “Staff to Doodle additional call times for the next two weeks, including Wednesdays and Fridays” please take the Doodle poll below at your earliest convenience: Doodle Poll: https://doodle.com/poll/mzxys4cqguq8g5au Notes: The times should automatically align with your time zone. Although we have already scheduled a call on Monday, 11 June for 120 minutes, we did not determine availability for that call, so we are including it in the poll. We also are limiting times and days (Wednesdays and Friday) to those that have typically worked for most Sub Team members previously. We can introduce other times as necessary. After Monday’s meeting we are suggesting calls for 90 minutes and we can reduce the Monday call to 90 minutes if preferable. There is a URS Documents Sub Team call already scheduled for Wednesday, 13 June at the usual WG time of 1700 UTC so there will be some overlap if we run the call for 90 minutes starting at 1600 UTC. For 20 June we are suggesting using the slot at the regular time for the full WG (1700 UTC), but this can be adjusted if it is determined that there is a need for a full WG meeting. We are not scheduling on Friday, 22 June as people will likely be traveling for ICANN62. Thank you very much and please do let us know if you would like us to change any aspects of the poll. Kind regards, Mary, Ariel, Berry, and Julie From: Gnso-rpm-data <gnso-rpm-data-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org> Date: Thursday, June 7, 2018 at 2:27 PM To: "gnso-rpm-data(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-data(a)icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-rpm-data] Action Items from RPM Data Sub Team Meeting 07 June Dear RPM Data Sub Team members, Thank you very much to all of you who participated in today’s call. Here are the action items staff captured: Action Items: Sub Team to use the Friday meeting to work on the TM/Brand Owner survey Staff to Doodle additional call times for the next two weeks, including Wednesdays and Fridays Sub Team to continue providing redline comments/suggested edits on the Google Doc, led by the original author of each survey : Registry Operators: https://docs.google.com/document/d/13atDQ54Sf3ICNn1-thaSldhxB8XwCAq5w7lXiyp… Registrars: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1sVyYahCcRY8HGoIXOO2kJXy48gQnsbms2xFeAbD… TM/Brand Owners: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1yWzLPfI9o0D3vD09Nf8zudcLF4sChl4dvMV_fyg… Registrants: https://docs.google.com/document/d/18K-zhP541IGCR0bXJpBtdmWdpfQ6BbKhFZaaZsf… Potential Registrants: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1iY4KsWpioC8Sacs-pWurfnKxhOsiQA7YaSo1wux… Staff will follow up with the brief notes that were captured and also post them to the wiki. Best regards, Mary, Ariel, Berry and Julie

2 2

Re: [Gnso-rpm-data] Actions & Notes: RPM Data Sub Team 07 June 2018
by Julie Hedlund June 7, 2018

June 7, 2018

Hi Rebecca, Thanks so much for starting this work! We’d be grateful if you could make your comments in the Google Docs at: Registrants: https://docs.google.com/document/d/18K-zhP541IGCR0bXJpBtdmWdpfQ6BbKhFZaaZsf… Potential Registrants: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1iY4KsWpioC8Sacs-pWurfnKxhOsiQA7YaSo1wux… This is because the Google docs have also been shared with Analysis Group so they will be able to see your comments and you will be able to see any questions they may have with respect to them. Please let us know if staff can assist you in any way. Thanks again for your help! Best, Mary, Ariel, Berry, and Julie From: Gnso-rpm-data <gnso-rpm-data-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of "Tushnet, Rebecca" <rtushnet(a)law.harvard.edu> Date: Thursday, June 7, 2018 at 5:43 PM To: Ariel Liang <ariel.liang(a)icann.org>, "gnso-rpm-data(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-data(a)icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-rpm-data] Actions & Notes: RPM Data Sub Team 07 June 2018 I have started working on the registrant/potential registrant questions, as Kristine wisely suggested. Would it make sense to circulate my written comments to the Analysis Group as well as this group? If so, what contact information should I use for them? W/r/t the registrants & potential registrants, it seems that a bit more background is needed, in particular the first date anyone actually could have registered a domain name in a new gTLD--does anyone remember that date offhand? 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: Thursday, June 7, 2018 5:19:34 PM To: gnso-rpm-data(a)icann.org Subject: [Gnso-rpm-data] Actions & Notes: RPM Data Sub Team 07 June 2018 Dear All, Please see below the action items and notes captured by staff from the Data Sub Team call held on 07 June 2018 (1700 UTC). Staff have posted to the wiki space the action items and notes. Please note that these will be high-level notes and are not meant as a substitute for the transcript or recording. The recording, AC chat, and attendance records are posted on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/x/GisFBQ Best Regards, Ariel Ariel Xinyue Liang Policy Analyst | Washington, DC Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) ---------------- ACTION ITEMS AG to start incorporating edits/comments already discussed in the previous meetings and reflect them on the Google docs, so the Sub Team could review. Staff to Doodle additional call times for the next two weeks, including Wednesdays and Fridays Sub Team to use the Friday meeting to work on the TM/Brand Owner survey Sub Team to continue providing redline comments/suggested edits on the Google Doc, led by the original author of each survey. NOTES General Comments AG comments that the length of the survey needs to be balanced, considering the impact to response rate. Concerns with survey fatigue. Sub Team should also consider what are other ways to gather data for the questions that may be cut from the surveys? The questions related to sunrise pricing may be hard to illicit responses from ROs, based on AG's experience with TMCH review. Sub Team members have strong objection regarding the approach the surveys are handled; rushing through the surveys without letting members thoroughly review the documents is very concerning. There are anecdotal questions that one cannot predict how the respondents would respond. Would it be better to revert back to the anecdotal questions instead of trying to convert them into quantifiable questions to illicit data? Selected number of open ended questions can be very useful. AG could do that, but we need to be cautious about the number of open ended questions. The ideal survey is to have no more than 25% of the questions that are open-ended, otherwise the drop off rate would be high. Sub Team commented that while timeline needs to be respected, it should not be driving the decision of Sub Team. Sufficient time needs to be devoted to get the questions right. Registries who want to talk to the Sub Team have had and continue to have plenty of opportunity to do so. Some charter questions have no basis. The Sub Team don't understand why certain people said what they said in the original charter questions. It is hard to convert such questions into data driven questions. That's why this whole exercise has been such a challenge. Sub Team anticipate weeks to work on the surveys with AG, but this length of time could not be provided. There are budgetary limitations in this. Is there an alternative approach to get valuable information to the AG in real time? There are many gaps, as well as the lack of historic context in the RFP Appendix. Sub Team would need to take AG through all the sections after having some time to review the Google Docs before the next calls. The "new eyes" are certainly helpful because it highlights the gaps. AG would benefit from going through the background before they take another pass. Sub Team are encouraged to provide redline comments/edits in the Google Docs, but be mindful that they have other competing priorities. Instead of having everyone looking at every survey, Sub Team members who were the original authors of the draft survey questions are encouraged to focus on their respective survey and provide redline comments/edits. The draft survey questions do not have 100% consensus in the Sub Team. AG should not treat individual’s comments/edits as something agreed by the whole Sub Team. AG hasn't been invited to provide redline edits on the Google docs yet, but will be able to do so going forward. ACTION ITEM: AG to start incorporating edits/comments already discussed in the previous meetings and reflect them on the Google docs, so the Sub Team could review. Subject to the co-chairs' preferences and the Sub Team's availability, is there any objection to using the next two weeks to finish the surveys? F2F meeting in Panama may be useful but cannot expect everything be done there. We have to adjust expectations that not everyone can be on all calls in 2 hour blocks. Kristine volunteered to work with AG to answer questions and provide clarifications on the RO related questions. Not to wordsmith but to provide context/background. Michael volunteered for the TM/Brand Owner survey questions. Of course, the whole Sub Team would have the final say about the final survey questions. Q16/Q17 Original questions are on page 3 of the RFP Appendix Consider combining these two questions. The aspects that Q16/17 don't cover are the potential benefits if the sunrise period length is changed. The original questions not covered here are -- What were the benefits (to the registry or to brand owners)? What were the drawbacks? Were there any complaints or was anyone confused? (Include complaints from potential nonbrand owner registrants). We cannot ask TM owners what benefit they are getting in this question. We are only asking ROs. Registrars may not be able to answer these questions with any degree of certainty. It is difficult to come up with different options to make these questions more quantifiable. What Sub Team want to know is what they are missing. Why do some people want to extend the Sunrise period? It is hard to get the answer through a grid/tabulate format. Sub Team specifically try to illicit responses on how Sunrise period is impacted. Sub Team would like to know where the complaints went to and what they were. Sub Team are more concerned with the 25% of survey questions that are open ended. AG would like to request the Sub Team to provide suggestions and include additional questions/options to Q16/Q17 to the Google Doc. AG could maintain the grid format of the current questions, but to also include a separate question to illicit anecdotal responses. It may be helpful to also include questions illiciting "yes, no, maybe" type of responses. ROs don't have much of the technical costs of Sunrise. It's the registrars who have most of the technical costs. There are also marketing issues related to the sunrise. It may be helpful to have a couple of Sub Team members preview the survey and see how the questions work. Q18 The current question is not asking the critical aspect of the original draft question (e.g., duration, perpetual) Would it be better to ask respondents to explain why they rank the requirements the way they do? AG will include this sub question. Not particularly in favor of this question, and the Sub Team are not sure whether it is getting what the Sub Team were trying to ask. Original charter question: Should there be a different rule for some registries, such as specialized gTLDs (e.g. community or geo TLDs), based on their published registration/eligibility policies? Sub Team needs better wording for this question. Context of the original charter question: when you have specialized TLDs, should brand owners get into the door first? There are other ways to allocate TLDs that are not contingent to brands. ROs experience a lot of pushbacks related to certain TLDs. Include a "would you still offer sunrise" after Q18 AG said that the comment in the survey document is meant to show the charter questions that this section is intended to address It may be helpful to include examples to clarify the intention of the original charter question, but the examples should not be limiting type of examples. Q21/Q21a These questions are vague. Some TLDs don't have registration eligibility restrictions. Some ROs may not understand what these questions are asking. We may need some qualification for these questions. Rephrase the question to “Have you had requests for Sunrise from parties that do not have the eligibility?” or something else to that effect. As worded, the answer should be "yes" for each RO with a QLP In the instances where the wording is vague/confusing, AG would welcome direct feedback/redline suggestion in the Google Doc. AG could help rephrase questions to convey the meaning/context of the questions. Sub Team's input/clarification for content would be helpful. How can we develop the surveys and word the questions in a way to illicit meaningful data, instead of anecdotal responses. For Q21 in particular, it would be helpful to know what ideal type of response would look like. Q22 It may be placed before Q20 and Q21 Original question on page 4 of Appendix: How could the ICANN brand protection policies like Sunrise or Claims be altered to better accommodate restricted TLDs (like Community or GeoTLDs)? "How could" is the key, not just "should they". Respondents should suggest practical solutions and identify what they think would work better. AG could include an open-ended sub question to illicit such response. Q24 Respondents only need to answer Q24 if they answer yes to Q23 The word "startup" can be removed. Q26 While the original draft question is reflected in this proposed question, there is a follow up question asking for suggestions. May add a follow up question asking respondents what suggestion they may have to resolve the issues, but not to change the tone of the proposed question. Respondents only answer the additional question if they have encountered problems. AG can add a question that is more forward looking with open text field, but remain concerned with the length of the survey. Q27 Add a gating question. Spell out the acronyms. Q29b ROs do not send Claims notices. Registrars may provide more effective responses. Q30 Similar to Q16/Q17, all the tables descend to a whole range of issues that the Sub Team may not have the time to develop a comprehensive list for. We should not toss all the grid questions all together. Possibly there is a way to come up with a metric while still gathering anecdotal data. This question is just asking opinions, so respondents would rank based on things that matter to them. Not sure what we would get after sending this question, rather than seeing respondents advancing their own positions. This holds true for all target groups that would express their own opinions. It may be helpful to give respondents an opportunity to explain the basis of their opinions and “why”. Far more important are the actual stats and metrics that the WG could come up with. The analysis of the survey results would be crucial. The format/style of the same type of grid questions need to be consistent among all surveys. Q32 This question doesn’t belong in the Q23-26 section and is perhaps covered by the expansion of other questions now. Questions related to eligibility-restricted TLDs scattered in the survey. Grouping these questions would be more meaningful and can possibly shorten the survey. Ask respondents to indicate which program they are referring to in their answers (e.g., LRP, QLP, ALP). Most ROs won’t offer just QLP or ALP individually. Many ROs offer more than one program. Sub Team specifically want to know what changes the respondents would like to see and are less concerned about the problems that they encountered, as we know there are problems. Procedural Matters ACTION ITEM: Sub Team to use the Friday meeting to work on the TM/Brand Owner survey ACTION ITEM: Staff to Doodle additional call times for the next two weeks, including Wednesdays and Fridays

1 0

Actions & Notes: RPM Data Sub Team 07 June 2018
by Ariel Liang June 7, 2018

June 7, 2018

Dear All, Please see below the action items and notes captured by staff from the Data Sub Team call held on 07 June 2018 (1700 UTC). Staff have posted to the wiki space the action items and notes. Please note that these will be high-level notes and are not meant as a substitute for the transcript or recording. The recording, AC chat, and attendance records are posted on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/x/GisFBQ Best Regards, Ariel Ariel Xinyue Liang Policy Analyst | Washington, DC Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) ---------------- ACTION ITEMS * AG to start incorporating edits/comments already discussed in the previous meetings and reflect them on the Google docs, so the Sub Team could review. * Staff to Doodle additional call times for the next two weeks, including Wednesdays and Fridays * Sub Team to use the Friday meeting to work on the TM/Brand Owner survey * Sub Team to continue providing redline comments/suggested edits on the Google Doc, led by the original author of each survey. NOTES General Comments * AG comments that the length of the survey needs to be balanced, considering the impact to response rate. Concerns with survey fatigue. Sub Team should also consider what are other ways to gather data for the questions that may be cut from the surveys? * The questions related to sunrise pricing may be hard to illicit responses from ROs, based on AG's experience with TMCH review. * Sub Team members have strong objection regarding the approach the surveys are handled; rushing through the surveys without letting members thoroughly review the documents is very concerning. * There are anecdotal questions that one cannot predict how the respondents would respond. Would it be better to revert back to the anecdotal questions instead of trying to convert them into quantifiable questions to illicit data? Selected number of open ended questions can be very useful. AG could do that, but we need to be cautious about the number of open ended questions. The ideal survey is to have no more than 25% of the questions that are open-ended, otherwise the drop off rate would be high. * Sub Team commented that while timeline needs to be respected, it should not be driving the decision of Sub Team. Sufficient time needs to be devoted to get the questions right. * Registries who want to talk to the Sub Team have had and continue to have plenty of opportunity to do so. * Some charter questions have no basis. The Sub Team don't understand why certain people said what they said in the original charter questions. It is hard to convert such questions into data driven questions. That's why this whole exercise has been such a challenge. * Sub Team anticipate weeks to work on the surveys with AG, but this length of time could not be provided. There are budgetary limitations in this. Is there an alternative approach to get valuable information to the AG in real time? * There are many gaps, as well as the lack of historic context in the RFP Appendix. Sub Team would need to take AG through all the sections after having some time to review the Google Docs before the next calls. The "new eyes" are certainly helpful because it highlights the gaps. AG would benefit from going through the background before they take another pass. * Sub Team are encouraged to provide redline comments/edits in the Google Docs, but be mindful that they have other competing priorities. * Instead of having everyone looking at every survey, Sub Team members who were the original authors of the draft survey questions are encouraged to focus on their respective survey and provide redline comments/edits. * The draft survey questions do not have 100% consensus in the Sub Team. AG should not treat individual’s comments/edits as something agreed by the whole Sub Team. * AG hasn't been invited to provide redline edits on the Google docs yet, but will be able to do so going forward. * ACTION ITEM: AG to start incorporating edits/comments already discussed in the previous meetings and reflect them on the Google docs, so the Sub Team could review. * Subject to the co-chairs' preferences and the Sub Team's availability, is there any objection to using the next two weeks to finish the surveys? F2F meeting in Panama may be useful but cannot expect everything be done there. We have to adjust expectations that not everyone can be on all calls in 2 hour blocks. * Kristine volunteered to work with AG to answer questions and provide clarifications on the RO related questions. Not to wordsmith but to provide context/background. Michael volunteered for the TM/Brand Owner survey questions. Of course, the whole Sub Team would have the final say about the final survey questions. Q16/Q17 * Original questions are on page 3 of the RFP Appendix * Consider combining these two questions. * The aspects that Q16/17 don't cover are the potential benefits if the sunrise period length is changed. The original questions not covered here are -- What were the benefits (to the registry or to brand owners)? What were the drawbacks? Were there any complaints or was anyone confused? (Include complaints from potential nonbrand owner registrants). * We cannot ask TM owners what benefit they are getting in this question. We are only asking ROs. Registrars may not be able to answer these questions with any degree of certainty. * It is difficult to come up with different options to make these questions more quantifiable. What Sub Team want to know is what they are missing. Why do some people want to extend the Sunrise period? It is hard to get the answer through a grid/tabulate format. Sub Team specifically try to illicit responses on how Sunrise period is impacted. Sub Team would like to know where the complaints went to and what they were. Sub Team are more concerned with the 25% of survey questions that are open ended. * AG would like to request the Sub Team to provide suggestions and include additional questions/options to Q16/Q17 to the Google Doc. * AG could maintain the grid format of the current questions, but to also include a separate question to illicit anecdotal responses. It may be helpful to also include questions illiciting "yes, no, maybe" type of responses. * ROs don't have much of the technical costs of Sunrise. It's the registrars who have most of the technical costs. There are also marketing issues related to the sunrise. * It may be helpful to have a couple of Sub Team members preview the survey and see how the questions work. Q18 * The current question is not asking the critical aspect of the original draft question (e.g., duration, perpetual) * Would it be better to ask respondents to explain why they rank the requirements the way they do? AG will include this sub question. * Not particularly in favor of this question, and the Sub Team are not sure whether it is getting what the Sub Team were trying to ask. Original charter question: Should there be a different rule for some registries, such as specialized gTLDs (e.g. community or geo TLDs), based on their published registration/eligibility policies? Sub Team needs better wording for this question. * Context of the original charter question: when you have specialized TLDs, should brand owners get into the door first? There are other ways to allocate TLDs that are not contingent to brands. ROs experience a lot of pushbacks related to certain TLDs. * Include a "would you still offer sunrise" after Q18 * AG said that the comment in the survey document is meant to show the charter questions that this section is intended to address * It may be helpful to include examples to clarify the intention of the original charter question, but the examples should not be limiting type of examples. Q21/Q21a * These questions are vague. Some TLDs don't have registration eligibility restrictions. Some ROs may not understand what these questions are asking. We may need some qualification for these questions. * Rephrase the question to “Have you had requests for Sunrise from parties that do not have the eligibility?” or something else to that effect. * As worded, the answer should be "yes" for each RO with a QLP * In the instances where the wording is vague/confusing, AG would welcome direct feedback/redline suggestion in the Google Doc. AG could help rephrase questions to convey the meaning/context of the questions. Sub Team's input/clarification for content would be helpful. * How can we develop the surveys and word the questions in a way to illicit meaningful data, instead of anecdotal responses. For Q21 in particular, it would be helpful to know what ideal type of response would look like. Q22 * It may be placed before Q20 and Q21 * Original question on page 4 of Appendix: How could the ICANN brand protection policies like Sunrise or Claims be altered to better accommodate restricted TLDs (like Community or GeoTLDs)? * "How could" is the key, not just "should they". Respondents should suggest practical solutions and identify what they think would work better. * AG could include an open-ended sub question to illicit such response. Q24 * Respondents only need to answer Q24 if they answer yes to Q23 * The word "startup" can be removed. Q26 * While the original draft question is reflected in this proposed question, there is a follow up question asking for suggestions. * May add a follow up question asking respondents what suggestion they may have to resolve the issues, but not to change the tone of the proposed question. Respondents only answer the additional question if they have encountered problems. * AG can add a question that is more forward looking with open text field, but remain concerned with the length of the survey. Q27 * Add a gating question. * Spell out the acronyms. Q29b * ROs do not send Claims notices. Registrars may provide more effective responses. Q30 * Similar to Q16/Q17, all the tables descend to a whole range of issues that the Sub Team may not have the time to develop a comprehensive list for. * We should not toss all the grid questions all together. Possibly there is a way to come up with a metric while still gathering anecdotal data. * This question is just asking opinions, so respondents would rank based on things that matter to them. Not sure what we would get after sending this question, rather than seeing respondents advancing their own positions. This holds true for all target groups that would express their own opinions. * It may be helpful to give respondents an opportunity to explain the basis of their opinions and “why”. Far more important are the actual stats and metrics that the WG could come up with. The analysis of the survey results would be crucial. * The format/style of the same type of grid questions need to be consistent among all surveys. Q32 * This question doesn’t belong in the Q23-26 section and is perhaps covered by the expansion of other questions now. * Questions related to eligibility-restricted TLDs scattered in the survey. Grouping these questions would be more meaningful and can possibly shorten the survey. * Ask respondents to indicate which program they are referring to in their answers (e.g., LRP, QLP, ALP). Most ROs won’t offer just QLP or ALP individually. Many ROs offer more than one program. * Sub Team specifically want to know what changes the respondents would like to see and are less concerned about the problems that they encountered, as we know there are problems. Procedural Matters * ACTION ITEM: Sub Team to use the Friday meeting to work on the TM/Brand Owner survey * ACTION ITEM: Staff to Doodle additional call times for the next two weeks, including Wednesdays and Fridays

2 1

Recordings, Attendance & AC Chat / RPM Sub Team Data Call / Thursday, 07 June 2018 at 16:00 UTC
by Andrea Glandon June 7, 2018

June 7, 2018

Dear All, Please find the attendance and AC chat of the call attached to this email, and the MP3 and AC recording below for the Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) Sub Team for Data call held Thursday, 07 June 2018 at 16:00 UTC. Attendance of the call is also posted on the agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/GisFBQ MP3: https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-rpm-review-data-07jun18-en.mp3 <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__audio.icann.org_gnso_g…> AC Recording: https://participate.icann.org/p9irulckvra/<https://participate.icann.org/p9irulckvra/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=10f21ca053bd9afd…> The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: https://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_grou…> ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-data/ Main wiki page for the working group: https://community.icann.org/x/eI1EB [community.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_…> Thank you. Kind Regards, Andrea Glandon

1 0