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

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

June 8, 2018

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

1 0

Doodle Poll re: Scheduling Additional Data Sub Team Meetings
by Julie Hedlund June 8, 2018

June 8, 2018

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

2 2

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

June 7, 2018

Hi Rebecca, Thanks so much for starting this work! We’d be grateful if you could make your comments in the Google Docs at: Registrants: https://docs.google.com/document/d/18K-zhP541IGCR0bXJpBtdmWdpfQ6BbKhFZaaZsf… Potential Registrants: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1iY4KsWpioC8Sacs-pWurfnKxhOsiQA7YaSo1wux… This is because the Google docs have also been shared with Analysis Group so they will be able to see your comments and you will be able to see any questions they may have with respect to them. Please let us know if staff can assist you in any way. Thanks again for your help! Best, Mary, Ariel, Berry, and Julie From: Gnso-rpm-data <gnso-rpm-data-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of "Tushnet, Rebecca" <rtushnet(a)law.harvard.edu> Date: Thursday, June 7, 2018 at 5:43 PM To: Ariel Liang <ariel.liang(a)icann.org>, "gnso-rpm-data(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-data(a)icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-rpm-data] Actions & Notes: RPM Data Sub Team 07 June 2018 I have started working on the registrant/potential registrant questions, as Kristine wisely suggested. Would it make sense to circulate my written comments to the Analysis Group as well as this group? If so, what contact information should I use for them? W/r/t the registrants & potential registrants, it seems that a bit more background is needed, in particular the first date anyone actually could have registered a domain name in a new gTLD--does anyone remember that date offhand? Rebecca Tushnet Frank Stanton Professor of First Amendment Law, Harvard Law School 703 593 6759 From: Gnso-rpm-data <gnso-rpm-data-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Ariel Liang <ariel.liang(a)icann.org> Sent: Thursday, June 7, 2018 5:19:34 PM To: gnso-rpm-data(a)icann.org Subject: [Gnso-rpm-data] Actions & Notes: RPM Data Sub Team 07 June 2018 Dear All, Please see below the action items and notes captured by staff from the Data Sub Team call held on 07 June 2018 (1700 UTC). Staff have posted to the wiki space the action items and notes. Please note that these will be high-level notes and are not meant as a substitute for the transcript or recording. The recording, AC chat, and attendance records are posted on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/x/GisFBQ Best Regards, Ariel Ariel Xinyue Liang Policy Analyst | Washington, DC Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) ---------------- ACTION ITEMS AG to start incorporating edits/comments already discussed in the previous meetings and reflect them on the Google docs, so the Sub Team could review. Staff to Doodle additional call times for the next two weeks, including Wednesdays and Fridays Sub Team to use the Friday meeting to work on the TM/Brand Owner survey Sub Team to continue providing redline comments/suggested edits on the Google Doc, led by the original author of each survey. NOTES General Comments AG comments that the length of the survey needs to be balanced, considering the impact to response rate. Concerns with survey fatigue. Sub Team should also consider what are other ways to gather data for the questions that may be cut from the surveys? The questions related to sunrise pricing may be hard to illicit responses from ROs, based on AG's experience with TMCH review. Sub Team members have strong objection regarding the approach the surveys are handled; rushing through the surveys without letting members thoroughly review the documents is very concerning. There are anecdotal questions that one cannot predict how the respondents would respond. Would it be better to revert back to the anecdotal questions instead of trying to convert them into quantifiable questions to illicit data? Selected number of open ended questions can be very useful. AG could do that, but we need to be cautious about the number of open ended questions. The ideal survey is to have no more than 25% of the questions that are open-ended, otherwise the drop off rate would be high. Sub Team commented that while timeline needs to be respected, it should not be driving the decision of Sub Team. Sufficient time needs to be devoted to get the questions right. Registries who want to talk to the Sub Team have had and continue to have plenty of opportunity to do so. Some charter questions have no basis. The Sub Team don't understand why certain people said what they said in the original charter questions. It is hard to convert such questions into data driven questions. That's why this whole exercise has been such a challenge. Sub Team anticipate weeks to work on the surveys with AG, but this length of time could not be provided. There are budgetary limitations in this. Is there an alternative approach to get valuable information to the AG in real time? There are many gaps, as well as the lack of historic context in the RFP Appendix. Sub Team would need to take AG through all the sections after having some time to review the Google Docs before the next calls. The "new eyes" are certainly helpful because it highlights the gaps. AG would benefit from going through the background before they take another pass. Sub Team are encouraged to provide redline comments/edits in the Google Docs, but be mindful that they have other competing priorities. Instead of having everyone looking at every survey, Sub Team members who were the original authors of the draft survey questions are encouraged to focus on their respective survey and provide redline comments/edits. The draft survey questions do not have 100% consensus in the Sub Team. AG should not treat individual’s comments/edits as something agreed by the whole Sub Team. AG hasn't been invited to provide redline edits on the Google docs yet, but will be able to do so going forward. ACTION ITEM: AG to start incorporating edits/comments already discussed in the previous meetings and reflect them on the Google docs, so the Sub Team could review. Subject to the co-chairs' preferences and the Sub Team's availability, is there any objection to using the next two weeks to finish the surveys? F2F meeting in Panama may be useful but cannot expect everything be done there. We have to adjust expectations that not everyone can be on all calls in 2 hour blocks. Kristine volunteered to work with AG to answer questions and provide clarifications on the RO related questions. Not to wordsmith but to provide context/background. Michael volunteered for the TM/Brand Owner survey questions. Of course, the whole Sub Team would have the final say about the final survey questions. Q16/Q17 Original questions are on page 3 of the RFP Appendix Consider combining these two questions. The aspects that Q16/17 don't cover are the potential benefits if the sunrise period length is changed. The original questions not covered here are -- What were the benefits (to the registry or to brand owners)? What were the drawbacks? Were there any complaints or was anyone confused? (Include complaints from potential nonbrand owner registrants). We cannot ask TM owners what benefit they are getting in this question. We are only asking ROs. Registrars may not be able to answer these questions with any degree of certainty. It is difficult to come up with different options to make these questions more quantifiable. What Sub Team want to know is what they are missing. Why do some people want to extend the Sunrise period? It is hard to get the answer through a grid/tabulate format. Sub Team specifically try to illicit responses on how Sunrise period is impacted. Sub Team would like to know where the complaints went to and what they were. Sub Team are more concerned with the 25% of survey questions that are open ended. AG would like to request the Sub Team to provide suggestions and include additional questions/options to Q16/Q17 to the Google Doc. AG could maintain the grid format of the current questions, but to also include a separate question to illicit anecdotal responses. It may be helpful to also include questions illiciting "yes, no, maybe" type of responses. ROs don't have much of the technical costs of Sunrise. It's the registrars who have most of the technical costs. There are also marketing issues related to the sunrise. It may be helpful to have a couple of Sub Team members preview the survey and see how the questions work. Q18 The current question is not asking the critical aspect of the original draft question (e.g., duration, perpetual) Would it be better to ask respondents to explain why they rank the requirements the way they do? AG will include this sub question. Not particularly in favor of this question, and the Sub Team are not sure whether it is getting what the Sub Team were trying to ask. Original charter question: Should there be a different rule for some registries, such as specialized gTLDs (e.g. community or geo TLDs), based on their published registration/eligibility policies? Sub Team needs better wording for this question. Context of the original charter question: when you have specialized TLDs, should brand owners get into the door first? There are other ways to allocate TLDs that are not contingent to brands. ROs experience a lot of pushbacks related to certain TLDs. Include a "would you still offer sunrise" after Q18 AG said that the comment in the survey document is meant to show the charter questions that this section is intended to address It may be helpful to include examples to clarify the intention of the original charter question, but the examples should not be limiting type of examples. Q21/Q21a These questions are vague. Some TLDs don't have registration eligibility restrictions. Some ROs may not understand what these questions are asking. We may need some qualification for these questions. Rephrase the question to “Have you had requests for Sunrise from parties that do not have the eligibility?” or something else to that effect. As worded, the answer should be "yes" for each RO with a QLP In the instances where the wording is vague/confusing, AG would welcome direct feedback/redline suggestion in the Google Doc. AG could help rephrase questions to convey the meaning/context of the questions. Sub Team's input/clarification for content would be helpful. How can we develop the surveys and word the questions in a way to illicit meaningful data, instead of anecdotal responses. For Q21 in particular, it would be helpful to know what ideal type of response would look like. Q22 It may be placed before Q20 and Q21 Original question on page 4 of Appendix: How could the ICANN brand protection policies like Sunrise or Claims be altered to better accommodate restricted TLDs (like Community or GeoTLDs)? "How could" is the key, not just "should they". Respondents should suggest practical solutions and identify what they think would work better. AG could include an open-ended sub question to illicit such response. Q24 Respondents only need to answer Q24 if they answer yes to Q23 The word "startup" can be removed. Q26 While the original draft question is reflected in this proposed question, there is a follow up question asking for suggestions. May add a follow up question asking respondents what suggestion they may have to resolve the issues, but not to change the tone of the proposed question. Respondents only answer the additional question if they have encountered problems. AG can add a question that is more forward looking with open text field, but remain concerned with the length of the survey. Q27 Add a gating question. Spell out the acronyms. Q29b ROs do not send Claims notices. Registrars may provide more effective responses. Q30 Similar to Q16/Q17, all the tables descend to a whole range of issues that the Sub Team may not have the time to develop a comprehensive list for. We should not toss all the grid questions all together. Possibly there is a way to come up with a metric while still gathering anecdotal data. This question is just asking opinions, so respondents would rank based on things that matter to them. Not sure what we would get after sending this question, rather than seeing respondents advancing their own positions. This holds true for all target groups that would express their own opinions. It may be helpful to give respondents an opportunity to explain the basis of their opinions and “why”. Far more important are the actual stats and metrics that the WG could come up with. The analysis of the survey results would be crucial. The format/style of the same type of grid questions need to be consistent among all surveys. Q32 This question doesn’t belong in the Q23-26 section and is perhaps covered by the expansion of other questions now. Questions related to eligibility-restricted TLDs scattered in the survey. Grouping these questions would be more meaningful and can possibly shorten the survey. Ask respondents to indicate which program they are referring to in their answers (e.g., LRP, QLP, ALP). Most ROs won’t offer just QLP or ALP individually. Many ROs offer more than one program. Sub Team specifically want to know what changes the respondents would like to see and are less concerned about the problems that they encountered, as we know there are problems. Procedural Matters ACTION ITEM: Sub Team to use the Friday meeting to work on the TM/Brand Owner survey ACTION ITEM: Staff to Doodle additional call times for the next two weeks, including Wednesdays and Fridays

1 0

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

June 7, 2018

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

2 1

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

June 7, 2018

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

1 0

Proposed Agenda and Documents: Meeting 08 June at 1600 UTC
by Julie Hedlund June 7, 2018

June 7, 2018

Dear Data Sub Team Members, In preparation for tomorrow’s (08 June) meeting at 16:00 UTC for 120 minutes, please see the proposed Sunrise & Claims survey questions from the Analysis Group in the following Google docs for discussion and comment: Registry Operators: https://docs.google.com/document/d/13atDQ54Sf3ICNn1-thaSldhxB8XwCAq5w7lXiyp… Registrars: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1sVyYahCcRY8HGoIXOO2kJXy48gQnsbms2xFeAbD… TM/Brand Owners: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1yWzLPfI9o0D3vD09Nf8zudcLF4sChl4dvMV_fyg… Registrants: https://docs.google.com/document/d/18K-zhP541IGCR0bXJpBtdmWdpfQ6BbKhFZaaZsf… Potential Registrants: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1iY4KsWpioC8Sacs-pWurfnKxhOsiQA7YaSo1wux… Please see the proposed agenda for today’s meeting: 1. Review agenda 2. Discussion of the proposed TM/Brand Owners survey questions and suggested changes by Analysis Group 3. AOB Please also see attached the RFP appendix that includes the original questions as developed by the Sub Team, which is also uploaded on the agenda wiki page here: https://community.icann.org/x/FysFBQ [community.icann.org] Best Regards, Mary, Julie, Ariel, and Berry

1 0

Action Items from RPM Data Sub Team Meeting 07 June
by Julie Hedlund June 7, 2018

June 7, 2018

Dear RPM Data Sub Team members, Thank you very much to all of you who participated in today’s call. Here are the action items staff captured: Action Items: Sub Team to use the Friday meeting to work on the TM/Brand Owner survey Staff to Doodle additional call times for the next two weeks, including Wednesdays and Fridays Sub Team to continue providing redline comments/suggested edits on the Google Doc, led by the original author of each survey : Registry Operators: https://docs.google.com/document/d/13atDQ54Sf3ICNn1-thaSldhxB8XwCAq5w7lXiyp… Registrars: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1sVyYahCcRY8HGoIXOO2kJXy48gQnsbms2xFeAbD… TM/Brand Owners: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1yWzLPfI9o0D3vD09Nf8zudcLF4sChl4dvMV_fyg… Registrants: https://docs.google.com/document/d/18K-zhP541IGCR0bXJpBtdmWdpfQ6BbKhFZaaZsf… Potential Registrants: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1iY4KsWpioC8Sacs-pWurfnKxhOsiQA7YaSo1wux… Staff will follow up with the brief notes that were captured and also post them to the wiki. Best regards, Mary, Ariel, Berry and Julie

1 0

Proposed Agenda and Documents: Meeting 07 June at 1600 UTC
by Julie Hedlund June 7, 2018

June 7, 2018

Dear Data Sub Team Members, In preparation for today’s meeting at 16:00 UTC (extended to 120 minutes), please see the proposed Sunrise & Claims survey questions from the Analysis Group in the following Google docs for discussion and comment. NOTE: please use the Google docs to avoid the confusion that would result from multiple redlined documents: Registry Operators: https://docs.google.com/document/d/13atDQ54Sf3ICNn1-thaSldhxB8XwCAq5w7lXiyp… Registrars: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1sVyYahCcRY8HGoIXOO2kJXy48gQnsbms2xFeAbD… TM/Brand Owners: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1yWzLPfI9o0D3vD09Nf8zudcLF4sChl4dvMV_fyg… Registrants: https://docs.google.com/document/d/18K-zhP541IGCR0bXJpBtdmWdpfQ6BbKhFZaaZsf… Potential Registrants: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1iY4KsWpioC8Sacs-pWurfnKxhOsiQA7YaSo1wux… Please see the proposed agenda for today’s meeting: 1. Review agenda 2. Discussion of the proposed survey questions and suggested changes by Analysis Group 3. AOB Please also see attached the RFP appendix that includes the original questions as developed by the Sub Team, which is also uploaded on the agenda wiki page here: https://community.icann.org/x/FysFBQ [community.icann.org] Best Regards, Mary, Julie, Ariel, and Berry

1 0

Re: [Gnso-rpm-data] [Ext] RE: Action Items from RPM Data Sub Team Meeting 06 June
by Julie Hedlund June 7, 2018

June 7, 2018

Thanks so much Kristine for your very helpful suggestion. Best, Julie From: "Dorrain, Kristine" <dorraink(a)amazon.com> Date: Wednesday, June 6, 2018 at 7:21 PM To: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org>, "gnso-rpm-data(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-data(a)icann.org> Subject: [Ext] RE: Action Items from RPM Data Sub Team Meeting 06 June Thanks Julie and all~ Might I propose that we each *start with* the section we drafted? We should all absolutely weigh in on all sections, but we have each already dedicated time to these sections and we recall what we were trying to get at. I think the person that drafted the section is going to be best positioned to call out any issues and to make an initial assessment if items changed by the AG accurately reflect the group’s intent. Best, Kristine From: Gnso-rpm-data [mailto:gnso-rpm-data-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Julie Hedlund Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2018 12:24 PM To: gnso-rpm-data(a)icann.org Subject: [Gnso-rpm-data] Action Items from RPM Data Sub Team Meeting 06 June Dear RPM Data Sub Team members, Thank you very much to all of you who participated in today’s call. Here are the action items staff captured: Action Items: Staff: 1. Extend the meeting on 07 June at 1600 UTC by 30 minutes to 120 minutes total (done – calendar invite updated and sent) 2. Schedule a call on 08 June at 1600 UTC for 120 minutes (ongoing) 3. Schedule a contingency call on Monday 11 June at 1600 UTC for 120 minutes (ongoing) Sub Team members: Provide comments/suggestions/questions on the draft surveys. NOTE: please use the following Google docs to avoid the confusion that would result from multiple redlined documents: Registry Operators: https://docs.google.com/document/d/13atDQ54Sf3ICNn1-thaSldhxB8XwCAq5w7lXiyp… [docs.google.com] Registrars: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1sVyYahCcRY8HGoIXOO2kJXy48gQnsbms2xFeAbD… [docs.google.com] TM/Brand Owners: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1yWzLPfI9o0D3vD09Nf8zudcLF4sChl4dvMV_fyg… [docs.google.com] Registrants: https://docs.google.com/document/d/18K-zhP541IGCR0bXJpBtdmWdpfQ6BbKhFZaaZsf… [docs.google.com] Potential Registrants: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1iY4KsWpioC8Sacs-pWurfnKxhOsiQA7YaSo1wux… [docs.google.com] Staff will follow up with the brief notes that were captured and also post them to the wiki. Best regards, Mary, Ariel, Berry and Julie

1 0

Action Items from RPM Data Sub Team Meeting 06 June
by Julie Hedlund June 6, 2018

June 6, 2018

Dear RPM Data Sub Team members, Thank you very much to all of you who participated in today’s call. Here are the action items staff captured: Action Items: Staff: 1. Extend the meeting on 07 June at 1600 UTC by 30 minutes to 120 minutes total (done – calendar invite updated and sent) 2. Schedule a call on 08 June at 1600 UTC for 120 minutes (ongoing) 3. Schedule a contingency call on Monday 11 June at 1600 UTC for 120 minutes (ongoing) Sub Team members: Provide comments/suggestions/questions on the draft surveys. NOTE: please use the following Google docs to avoid the confusion that would result from multiple redlined documents: Registry Operators: https://docs.google.com/document/d/13atDQ54Sf3ICNn1-thaSldhxB8XwCAq5w7lXiyp… Registrars: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1sVyYahCcRY8HGoIXOO2kJXy48gQnsbms2xFeAbD… TM/Brand Owners: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1yWzLPfI9o0D3vD09Nf8zudcLF4sChl4dvMV_fyg… Registrants: https://docs.google.com/document/d/18K-zhP541IGCR0bXJpBtdmWdpfQ6BbKhFZaaZsf… Potential Registrants: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1iY4KsWpioC8Sacs-pWurfnKxhOsiQA7YaSo1wux… Staff will follow up with the brief notes that were captured and also post them to the wiki. Best regards, Mary, Ariel, Berry and Julie

2 1