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

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

July 19, 2018

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

1 0

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

July 18, 2018

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

1 0

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

July 18, 2018

Dear All, Please find the attendance and AC chat of the call attached to this email, and the MP3 and AC recording below for the Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) Sub Team for Data call held Wednesday, 18 July 2018 at 17:00 UTC. Attendance of the call is also posted on the agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/ioxHBQ MP3: https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-rpm-review-data-18jul18-en.mp3 AC Recording: https://participate.icann.org/p377bxw073v/ The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: https://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_grou…> ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-data/ Main wiki page for the working group: https://community.icann.org/x/eI1EB [community.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_…> Thank you. Kind Regards, Michelle

1 0

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

July 17, 2018

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

1 0

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

July 13, 2018

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

3 3

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

July 13, 2018

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

3 3

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

July 9, 2018

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

1 0

Actions & Notes: RPM Data Sub Team 20 June 2018
by Ariel Liang June 20, 2018

June 20, 2018

Dear All, Please see below the action items and notes captured by staff from the Data Sub Team call held on 20 June 2018 (17:30 UTC). Staff have posted to the wiki space the action items and notes. Please note that these will be high-level notes and are not meant as a substitute for the transcript or recording. The recording, AC chat, and attendance records are posted on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/x/aoMpBQ Best Regards, Ariel Ariel Xinyue Liang Policy Analyst | Washington, DC Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) ACTION ITEM * AG to touch base with Research Now SSI and see how the cost would be impacted if the survey is expanded beyond NA region but still conducted in English. * AG to revise the questions and send to the point persons/Sub Team to review during ICANN62 and the first week of July. * Staff to discuss with AG about the distribution channels of the other surveys and start the discussion via the Sub Team mailing list. NOTES Discussions about Survey Outreach * Lori expressed concerns about the ways to identify registrants/potential registrants. * Based on Prof. Tushnet’s understanding, we are not only targeting people who attempted to register new gTLD domain names and received Claims Notice before. The target respondents are the people who are interested in registering a new gTLD domain name or tried to register new gTLDs in the past. Make sure AG is reaching the correct target group using validation checks, and not just the Sub Set Lori raised. * For registrant/potential registrant surveys, the initial screening question is that “Have you registered new gTLD domain names?”. AG can include additional screening questions to find out whether the respondents are the registrant population that the Sub Team is interested in reaching. AG can ask what type of gTLDs have they registered? * AG is planning to distribute the survey among the North American panel of the Research Now SSI, who are English speaking. * If the Sub Team need more demographic information, additional questions can be included, so the results can be cut based on different types of demographics. * More difficult way to reach the target respondents would be working with registrars and ask them to distribute the surveys to people who attempted to register new gTLD domains and received claims notice. * Sub Team would love if the registries/registrars are willing to send out the surveys to the registrants/potential registrants. Should pursue that avenue. * Statistically speaking, you will get a tiny number of people that qualify with regard to having registered new gTLD domains and receiving Claims Notice. * Perhaps people in North America aren't easily intimidated, but people from other regions are. * Survey cannot be limited to North America to be as comprehensive as we need to be. If we can't do the job correctly, then I have some fears about how this will be accepted by the community. Sub Team/Co-Chairs would face the criticisms from the community, as the survey results would not be representative. We need to provide additional rationale beyond the "cost" factor. * To expand the survey distribution to other geographic regions and use different languages would add cost significantly. Research NOW SSI do not have a lot of concerns with the lack of responses. But cost would increase due to the development of survey questions in other languages, the coding of surveys, and the review of responses in other languages. * Section 5 (Survey of Potential Respondents) Relevant Charter Q 3 addresses translations....how did this get missed? There's translating the survey, and there's the question as to whether useful data can be obtained regarding translations of the Claims Notice (the latter being the Charter question). * We know that specific Charter questions talks about translations of the Claims Notice. This of course does not imply that the survey itself is to be translated. So perhaps the question for AG is whether/how the geographical limitation can be overcome, and how responses concerning a translated Claims Notice may be obtained even via an English-language survey (if possible). The staff understanding is that the surveys will be conducted only in English. Perhaps the Sub Team and AG can discuss whether, within that limitation, the geographical coverage can be extended? Bearing the cost issue in mind. Could we do the surveys only in English, but go to other geographic regions beyond NA? * ACTION ITEM: AG to touch base with Research Now SSI and see how the cost would be impacted if the survey is expanded beyond NA region but still conducted in English. * We have not discussed in detail about the distribution channel for other surveys. * ACTION ITEM: Staff to discuss with AG about the distribution channels of the other surveys and start the discussion via the Sub Team mailing list. General Comments: Potential Registrant Survey * It is really a comprehension survey, particularly for the potential respondents. Like the short and sweet format which may likely get more responses. * Same reordering of the registrant survey can be applied to the potential registrant survey. * There is limitation in what we could learn from the data gathered through the current survey questions. * Would AG suggest that we use separate Registrant and Potential Registrant surveys or a single survey that has two tracks based on answers. This could provide another means for ensuring qualification of survey takers. Depending on their answers to the first screening question, they would be directed to the registrant/potential registrant surveys. Q1i * This question is targeting the primary demographic of the survey. Support the grid format. * The question may have missed the point "what the potential registrants think about the claims notice after they are shown the claims notice". The real focus is to understand how important they perceive the claims notice. * This question intends to transform the original open-ended question to a closed question. In the grid, AG lists these potential factors that may go into potential registrants’ decisions for continuing registration. * We do not want to limit the question only Group B and D. Make the question also available to Group C. * For Group B & D -- people who have never registered and saw the Claims Notice for the first time -- we are asking them two questions essentially: 1) Of the 5 factors, which one most influenced their decisions? 2) Why would they decide to abandon after they see the claims notice? Do we want to have follow up questions? We are not opposed to a short survey, but we just want to be sure we're getting it all. * Is this question going to the wrong people? Don't think these people are in the position to make that decision if they have hardly seen any Claims Notice. * If respondents select “would not influence me at all”, “not sure”, “I don't know”, they would not see the follow question, i.e., what are the reasons the Claims Notice would affect them. Only when they select "yes", they would see the follow-up question. * ACTION ITEM: AG to provide respondents the options to explain further even when they select “would not influence me at all”; they should also get a follow up question to explain their reason. * ACTION ITEM: AG to delete "Someone else already having claimed my domain name" in the grid. Q1j * No context for the options. Next Steps * AG to revise the questions, each author of the original survey to serve as the point person to review the revised version, and the entire Sub Team to approve all the revised questions, making sure the Sub Team is in agreement. * ACTION ITEM: AG to revise the questions and send to the point persons/Sub Team to review during ICANN62 and the first week of July. * WG to see the final surveys for information only. * As AG needs some time to code and test the survey after the survey questions are finalized, anticipate to distribute the surveys in mid/late July. * Reporting of the result would be late August. * There are many complaints about scheduling conflicts so it is hard to organize an ad-hoc meeting for the Data Sub Team in Panama.

1 0

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

June 20, 2018

Dear All, Please find the attendance and AC chat of the call attached to this email, and the MP3 and AC recording below for the Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) Sub Team for Data call held Wednesday, 20 June 2018 at 17:30 UTC. Attendance of the call is also posted on the agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/aoMpBQ MP3: https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-rpm-review-data-20jun18-en.mp3<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__audio.icann.org_gnso_g…> AC Recording: https://participate.icann.org/p5ovuhjig87/<https://participate.icann.org/p5ovuhjig87/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=d78a3b860d49eb9d…> The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: https://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_grou…> ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-data/ Main wiki page for the working group: https://community.icann.org/x/eI1EB [community.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_…> Thank you. Kind Regards, Andrea Glandon

1 0

Following My Question from Monday re: Qualification of Registrants for Survey
by Lori Schulman June 20, 2018

June 20, 2018

Dear All, I know that we are approaching today’s meeting and I wanted to reiterate something on the list rather than to absorb more time on the live call. On Monday, I had asked about how Registrants will be vetted for the survey. Stacy from AG explained that there will be “funneling” type questions that will qualify survey takers as “registrants” and they will be funneled to the rest of the questions. I am still not clear on how the questions will be drafted in order to ensure that we are getting survey takers who understand what is being asked based on their direct experience. Does AG have proposed draft questions already? If so, may we see them? Using paid test takers for random, consumer oriented surveys makes sense to me. For example, surveys on taste preferences or product comparisons. However, using that kind of pool for something as technical as our survey still troubles me. This goes back to something that Rebecca had explained regarding making sure that we are getting responses based on actual experiences rather than risking survey takers “ranking” or establishing “preferred” answers. If we want to query the understandability of claims notices then I think whether one has seen them before or not may not matter. However, I do think that if we are targeting users who have made actual decisions based on actual notices then we should only be targeting known purchasers who have received those notices. It seems to me that only the registrars would know for sure and I still have doubts about surveying the general public through a paid survey taking system. Therefore, I think it is appropriate to set some real parameters here. I want to make sure that we have the best pool possible given the technical nature of the survey. And I have further questions: * How does AG group plan to drill down to specific segments that we want? * What will the demographic profile look like? * How will we know that the respondents have actually attempted to purchase and have abandoned names based on a claims notice? * How will data be “sifted” after its collected? For example, we should identify in advance what we are looking for i.e., age, employment, number of domains registered, number of abandoned, etc. I have asked this question twice and I am still stuck on some of the details of the response. Perhaps the analysis group can respond in writing which could clarify what we are doing? Thank. Thank you. Lori S. Schulman Senior Director, Internet Policy International Trademark Association (INTA) +1-202-704-0408, Skype: lsschulman From: Gnso-rpm-data [mailto:gnso-rpm-data-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Julie Hedlund Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2018 4:28 PM To: gnso-rpm-data(a)icann.org Subject: [Gnso-rpm-data] REMINDER: Proposed Agenda and Documents: Meeting 20 June at 1730 UTC Dear Data Sub Team Members, In preparation for Wednesday’s meeting (20 June) at 17:30 UTC for 60 minutes, please see the proposed agenda and Google docs: 1. Review agenda 2. Discussion of the proposed Potential Registrant survey questions and suggested changes by Analysis Group: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1iY4KsWpioC8Sacs-pWurfnKxhOsiQA7YaSo1wux… 3. AOB Please also see attached the RFP appendix that includes the original questions as developed by the Sub Team, which is also uploaded on the agenda wiki page here: https://community.icann.org/x/FysFBQ [community.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_…>. Best Regards, Mary, Julie, Ariel, and Berry ________________________________

2 2