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

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

Aug. 23, 2018

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

1 0

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

Aug. 23, 2018

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

1 0

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

Aug. 23, 2018

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

2 1

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

Aug. 22, 2018

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

1 1

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

Aug. 21, 2018

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

1 1

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

Aug. 20, 2018

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

4 4

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

Aug. 20, 2018

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

3 4

Advice Needed: Complications Regarding Saving Survey Responses
by Ariel Liang Aug. 16, 2018

Aug. 16, 2018

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

2 2

Re: [Gnso-rpm-data] [Ext] Re: Close to Final Survey Questions - Comment by Thu 02 Aug 16:00 UTC
by Ariel Liang Aug. 4, 2018

Aug. 4, 2018

Hello Rebecca, Kristine, and all, Thank you, Rebecca and Kristine, for commenting on the Google Docs! We also forwarded Rebecca’s questions/comments below to AG and will pass their responses asap. As a gentle reminder -- other lead authors/interested Sub Team members please provide your comments/suggested edits on the Google docs by Thu, 02 Aug 16:00 UTC. Staff would like to highlight AG’s suggestion of letting respondents for the registrar, registry operator, and TM/band owner surveys choose which subsections of the surveys they would like to address. We have noted Rebecca’s concerns regarding whether respondents should choose vs. be randomly assigned to take different subsections of the survey. Sub Team members -- if you have any input/opinion about this point, please comment on the mailing list. Thank you, Mary, Julie, Ariel, and Berry From: "Tushnet, Rebecca" <rtushnet(a)law.harvard.edu> Date: Wednesday, August 1, 2018 at 1:01 PM To: Ariel Liang <ariel.liang(a)icann.org>, "gnso-rpm-data(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-data(a)icann.org> Subject: [Ext] Re: [Gnso-rpm-data] Close to Final Survey Questions - Comment by Thu 02 Aug 16:00 UTC I have made comments on the Google doc. Although I don't object to the new question about the respondent's employment status, I'm surprised that something was added, from my perspective, out of the blue. Who added it and why? Separately, let me reiterate that allowing respondents to choose is worse than randomly assigning them to a survey type where we are splitting the surveys, and if we're expanding that split then we should also randomize who gets which one in the other groups. I don't recall that we agreed to let respondents choose which branch of the survey they wanted to take. Rebecca Tushnet Frank Stanton Professor of First Amendment Law, Harvard Law School 703 593 6759 ________________________________ From: Gnso-rpm-data <gnso-rpm-data-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Ariel Liang <ariel.liang(a)icann.org> Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2018 11:18:18 AM To: gnso-rpm-data(a)icann.org Subject: [Gnso-rpm-data] Close to Final Survey Questions - Comment by Thu 02 Aug 16:00 UTC Dear Data Sub Team members, Analysis Group has further revised the draft Sunrise & Claims surveys based on the input/feedback from the Sub Team. They continue to be concerned about the length of the registrar and registry operator surveys, and suggest that respondents for each of those surveys be given a choice of which subsections of the survey they would like to address. This could be implemented in a similar way to how the trademark owner survey has been divided. IMPORTANT: Lead authors please review the revised surveys and provide your feedback by Thursday, 02 August at 16:00 UTC (48 hours). Others in the Sub Team are welcome to review as well. This deadline is set per timeline requirement, as the survey questions need to be finalized this week for AG to proceed with the programming of the surveys. To facilitate the review process, staff have converted the clean version of the revised surveys into Google Docs; the Google Docs have been shared with AG so they can view the comments/suggested edits at the same time. You may also find the redline version (.word files) attached for reference: * Registry Operators (Lead: Kristine Dorrain): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-S-7tk3BZMkD15XWnno7VQP4PtJVr60B9ltLnfM…<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_docume…> * Registrars (Lead: Susan Payne): https://docs.google.com/document/d/139E06nx1-dlkbTfQg7S9N_f3AZQ9Tr57RJKCTU2…<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_docume…> * Brand/Trademark Owners(Lead: Michael Graham): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ky5nRqI2VEHX3cWptYG5gAU1HMMRrLXf83f922R…<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_docume…> * Actual/Potential Registrants (Lead: Rebecca Tushnet): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1UVVzM8lTSiMC7N89OoY8VWPbVg8KVb8N3xRQlZJ…<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_docume…> Based on the discussion last week, the lead authors/Sub Team members will conduct this final review online. Sub Team call is hence not scheduled. Once the final survey questions are signed off by the Sub Team, they will be forwarded to the full WG as a FYI. Thank you all for your hard work pushing toward the finishing line of launching the surveys! Best Regards, Mary, Julie, Ariel, and Berry

3 8

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

Aug. 1, 2018

Dear Data Sub Team members, Thank you all for the input to the survey distribution plans. Staff have contacted Brian, Lori, and GDD colleagues as per our action items, and please see the updated plans below, with revised items highlighted in yellow. Please comment on the list if you have any additional feedback. Thank you, Mary, Julie, Ariel, and Berry == 1. Registry Survey * ICANN Staff to send out the survey directly through the GDD Customer Support Team to Registry Operators * According to GDD, the total number of unique registry companies is about 540; there are about 270 unique registry companies that manage multiple TLDs * GDD is able to filter ROs based on their category (generic, community, brand, CoC exemption granted, legacy/new gTLD). Nevertheless, AG will still include a gating question, asking respondents to identify whether they are brand registries or not. If they identify as brand registries, terminate the survey OR redirect them to other surveys to complete * ICANN Staff to contact the leadership of CPH/RySG to request help distributing the survey to their membership & mailing list, with GDD facilitating the communication * There are 85 companies in the RySG membership roster * Response rate: To render the results statistically significant, the desired response rate is 10% of the total universe of Registry Operators (about 50 companies). Given the current survey length, AG expects to get responses from 5% of Registry Operators. 2. Registrar Survey * ICANN Staff to send out the survey directly through the GDD Customer Support Team to Registrars * According to GDD, the total number of unique ICANN accredited registrar companies (including registrar families) is about 450. They all have signed the 2013 RAA with ICANN * AG has confirmed that there a gating question in the Registrar Survey, asking respondents whether they offer any new gTLDs * ICANN Staff to contact the leadership of CPH/RrSG to request help distributing the survey to their membership & mailing list, with GDD facilitating the communication * There are 107 companies in the RrSG membership roster * Response rate: To render the results statistically significant, the desired response rate is 10% of the total universe of accredited Registrars (about 45 companies). Given the current survey length and its experience with the TMCH review survey, AG expects to get responses from 5% of Registrars. 3. TM & Brand Owner Survey * AG to include in the cover note of the TM survey: smaller TM owners and law firms that represent smaller TM owner clients are encouraged to fill out the survey * ICANN Staff to contact the leadership of CSG/IPC/BC to request help distributing the survey to their membership & mailing list, stressing the outreach to smaller TM owners. * ICANN Staff to contact GSE team to request help distributing the survey to their relevant contact * Lori Schulman to help distribute the survey to INTA’s Data Protection and Internet Committees, and to socialize the survey with other groups in INTA as needed; Lori advised not to send an email blast to the entire INTA membership * Analysis Group to contact Deloitte to request help distributing the survey to trademark and brand owners with validated trademarks in the TMCH and/or their trademark agents * Susan Payne to help distribute the survey to Cyberspace Team (MARQUES corollary) and the CITMA Internet Committee * Brian Beckham to help distribute the survey to ECTA: http://www.ecta.org/committees/detail/internet-committee * Response rate: To render the results statistically significant, the desired response rate is 50 companies that are trademark owners. Given the current survey length, AG doesn’t think the desired response rate would be attainable. 4. Actual Registrant Survey * ICANN Staff to contact the leadership of the entire multistakeholder community to request help distributing the actual registrant survey. * ICANN Staff to contact GSE team to request help distributing the survey to their relevant contact * GDD has concerns about requesting help from Registrars to distribute the survey. Registrars may be concerned about this driving calls or inquires to their customer support teams which thus increases their operating expenses. To not hinder Registrars’ participation, AG will monitor the response rate and advise ICANN when to request help from Registrars as a last report option. GDD can contact a few smaller Registrars to request help. * On each survey for other target groups, AG could ask if the respondent has registered a domain name in a new gTLD and if so if they would be willing to take another short survey (i.e., the actual registrant survey). This could potentially bias the sample of respondents if many respondents from one target group agree to participate, (e.g., if many TM holders choose to proceed with the registrant survey). However, AG could add a question at the beginning of the survey to indicate the respondent’s original target group for the Sub Team/WG to evaluate the results. * Response rate: To render the results statistically significant, the desired response rate is 50 complete responses. Whether the response rate is attainable will depend on how many potential respondents are reached and how targeted the outreach is. 5. Potential Registrant Survey * Analysis Group to use Research now SSI’s online panels to reach potential registrants in North America and English-speaking countries outside of North America (UK, Hong Kong, India, Singapore, South Africa) * ICANN Staff to contact the leadership of the entire multistakeholder community to request help distributing the potential registrant survey. * ICANN Staff to contact GSE team to request help distributing the survey to their relevant contact * GDD has concerns about requesting help from Registrars to distribute the survey. Registrars may be concerned about this driving calls or inquires to their customer support teams which thus increases their operating expenses. To not hinder Registrars’ participation, AG will monitor the response rate and advise ICANN when to request help from Registrars as a last report option. GDD can contact a few smaller Registrars to request help. * Response rate: To render the results statistically significant, the desired response rate is 150 complete responses. AG expects that the desired response rate is achievable. * Target respondents are the people who are interested in registering a new gTLD domain name or tried to register new gTLDs in the past, not just the ones who attempted to register new gTLD and received Claim Notice before) 6. Other Channels (ICANN Staff to coordinate, if appropriate) * GNSO website announcement / homepage & GNSO Twitter: to be used to promote all surveys * ICANN.org announcement & ICANN Social Media channels (e.g., Twitter, Linkedin, Facebook): to be used to promote the actual/potential registrant surveys 7. If unable to reach the desired response rate… * If the response rate is substantially lower than the target minimums, it will be very difficult to generalize the results of the survey. The ability to draw conclusions from the results will be weakened. * To help increase the response rate, AG will monitor the survey completion and provide status report periodically, and coordinate with ICANN staff to send out reminders in a timely manner. * If response rate is below the baseline near the survey closing date, any further outreach or “plan B” would be driven by the analysis of whom responded to the survey.

3 2