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

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

Oct. 2, 2018

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

1 0

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

Sept. 5, 2018

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

1 0

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

Aug. 31, 2018

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

1 0

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

Aug. 30, 2018

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

2 1

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

Aug. 30, 2018

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

2 2

Re: [Gnso-rpm-data] [Ext] RE: REMINDER: Registry Survey - Beta Testers' Feedback (Review by COB Monday)
by Ariel Liang Aug. 28, 2018

Aug. 28, 2018

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

3 6

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

Aug. 28, 2018

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

2 2

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

Aug. 27, 2018

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

1 1

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

Aug. 27, 2018

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

2 1

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

Aug. 24, 2018

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

1 1