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

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

June 15, 2018

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

4 7

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

June 15, 2018

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

3 2

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

June 15, 2018

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

3 3

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

June 15, 2018

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

1 0

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

June 13, 2018

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

1 0

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

June 13, 2018

Dear All, Please find the attendance and AC chat of the call attached to this email, and the MP3 and AC recording below for the Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) Sub Team for Data call held Wednesday, 13 June 2018 at 16:00 UTC. Attendance of the call is also posted on the agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/YoMpBQ MP3: https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-rpm-review-data-13jun18-en.mp3 AC Recording: https://participate.icann.org/p1zyhuplbun/<https://participate.icann.org/p1zyhuplbun/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=a3029c3a5e9ca4be…> The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: https://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_grou…> ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-data/ Main wiki page for the working group: https://community.icann.org/x/eI1EB [community.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_…> Thank you. Kind Regards, Julie

1 0

Actions & Notes: RPM Data Sub Team 13 June 2018
by Ariel Liang June 13, 2018

June 13, 2018

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

1 0

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

June 13, 2018

Apologies - I have a work meeting I cannot reschedule so will be unable to attend call today. Michael r. From: Lori Schulman [mailto:lschulman@inta.org] Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2018 9:11 AM To: Susan Payne <susan.payne(a)valideus.com>; Michael Graham (ELCA) <migraham(a)expedia.com> Subject: RE: data call now Sorry. Having issues getting into Adobe from my laptop. I am using my mobile and it's hard to read the screen. Lori S. Schulman Senior Director, Internet Policy International Trademark Association (INTA) +1-202-704-0408, Skype: lsschulman From: Susan Payne [mailto:susan.payne@valideus.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2018 12:06 PM To: Lori Schulman <lschulman(a)inta.org<mailto:lschulman@inta.org>>; Michael Graham (ELCA) <migraham(a)expedia.com<mailto:migraham@expedia.com>> Subject: data call now Hi, are either of you able to join? At moment it's me, AG, Phil and staff. I think we're just finishing registrar section so not the end of the world S Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy | Valideus Ltd 28-30 Little Russell Street London, WC1A 2HN, United Kingdom E: susan.payne(a)valideus.com<mailto:susan.payne@valideus.com> D: +44 20 7421 8255 T: +44 20 7421 8299 M: +44 7971 661175 Liability cannot be accepted for statements made which are clearly the sender's own and not made on behalf of Valideus. This message is intended solely for the addressee and may contain confidential information. If you have received this message in error, please send it back to us, and immediately and permanently delete it. Do not use, copy or disclose the information contained in this message or in any attachment. Valideus Ltd is registered in England and Wales with company number 06181291 and VAT number 987 7551 49. Our registered office is at 28-30 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN.

2 1

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

June 12, 2018

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

1 0

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

June 12, 2018

Yes, that’s right Susan – we should have made that clear and thanks for asking. Best, Julie From: Susan Payne <susan.payne(a)valideus.com> Date: Tuesday, June 12, 2018 at 8:04 AM To: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org>, "gnso-rpm-data(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-data(a)icann.org> Subject: [Ext] RE: Upcoming Meetings to Finalize the Surveys Thanks Julie So the call on Weds 20th replaces the full WG call? Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy | Valideus Ltd E: susan.payne(a)valideus.com D: +44 20 7421 8255 T: +44 20 7421 8299 M: +44 7971 661175 From: Gnso-rpm-data [mailto:gnso-rpm-data-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Julie Hedlund Sent: 12 June 2018 12:32 To: gnso-rpm-data(a)icann.org Subject: [Gnso-rpm-data] Upcoming Meetings to Finalize the Surveys Importance: High Dear Data Sub Team Members, Thanks to those who completed the Doodle. Although not everyone can join for all of the time slots, staff suggests that we proceed with the meeting times as suggested in the Doodle to ensure that we can finalize the remaining surveys. In addition, staff suggests adding a time slot on Monday, 18 June at 1700 UTC for 90 minutes. Please let us know if you cannot meet at that time. We think we may need this additional time as we still have 3 surveys to finalize (see links below). Here are the upcoming meeting times and suggested work items: Wednesday, 13 June, 1600 UTC, 60 minutes (reduced time to avoid conflicting with the Documents Sub Team) – Finalize Registrar survey Friday, 15 June, 1600 UTC, 90 minutes – Begin Registrants survey review Monday, 18 June, 1700 UTC, 90 minutes – Finalize Registranst survey; begin Potential Registrants survey review Wednesday, 20 June, 1700 UTC, 90 minutes – Finalize Potential Registrants survey Registrar survey: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1sVyYahCcRY8HGoIXOO2kJXy48gQnsbms2xFeAbD… [docs.google.com] Registrants survey: https://docs.google.com/document/d/18K-zhP541IGCR0bXJpBtdmWdpfQ6BbKhFZaaZsf… [docs.google.com] Potential Registrants survey: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1iY4KsWpioC8Sacs-pWurfnKxhOsiQA7YaSo1wux… [docs.google.com] Meeting notices will be sent out shortly. Thanks so much for your all your time and efforts! Best Regards, Mary, Julie, Ariel, and Berry

1 0