Dear All,

Please see below the action items and notes captured by staff from the Data Sub Team call held on 11 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/NC4FBQ.

Best Regards,

Ariel

Ariel Xinyue Liang

Policy Analyst | Washington, DC 

Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) 

----------------

ACTION ITEMS

• Staff to send a reminder of the Doodle poll for additional Data Sub Team meeting (Wed 16:00 - 90 min or 60 min, Fri 16:00 - 90 min, next Wed, 17:00 UTC - 90 min). DONE
• Staff to add the original numbering of the sub questions under Q4 on the Google Doc. DONE

• Staff to check the notes with regard to the grid question in the RO survey (related to Registrar survey Q4i/Q4j). DONE

Please see staff notes related to Q16/Q17 in the Registry survey:

• Original questions are on page 3 of the RFP Appendix
• Consider combining these two questions.
• The questions don't cover 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 elicit 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 elicit anecdotal responses. It may be helpful to also include questions eliciting "yes, no, maybe" type of responses.
• ROs don't have much of the technical costs of Sunrise. It's the registrars that 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.

• AG to check whether the question about how long ROs ran Sunrise period for is included in the RO survey.
• AG to reference the original questions and redraft Registrar survey Q7-10 to capture the intent.
• Susan to check what alternative word to "offer" is appropriate in Registrar survey Q4
• Sub Team to continue working on the Registrar survey from Q12 in the next call

NOTES 

TM Survey

Q6a 

• Sub Team agree with the revised bands Susan suggested 

Q30

• AG makes this a gateway question. If respondent answers yes, then he/she will proceed to Q31; If answers no, terminate the survey.

Q31

• Replace the last "and" with "to" 
• This question seems to lead respondents to answer "yes"; need to stripe out the suggested "yes" answer.
• Rephrase the question to “Do you believe the protection of trademarks should be broadened to include variance of trademarks?” or something to that effect.
• Don't think we should simply ask "yes" or "no". We want to ask “Do you have any evidence that the broadening of the comparison basis to include variances of trademarks is useful to protect the rights of TM owners and domain name applicants?” We try to get more than just loaded opinions, and that's the point of asking for evidence. Suggest going back to the language of the original question. 
• Provide an open text field to allow the respondents to provide more narrative answers. Add "if yes, please explain why the benefit would outweigh the false positive?"
• Other respondent groups should be asked this question as well. 
• AG suggested to use a slightly shorter version of the question. The wording of "How likely do you think..." could be less prone to leading the respondents. Include a scale and an open text field for respondents to provide their rationale. Could also include some examples to guide the respondents. 
• Even with a scale, it is still soliciting unsupported opinion. We need the respondents to provide justifications based on experience/evidence. Instead of a scale, add a sub question "If yes/no, please provide evidence". The purpose is to shed light on concrete information, examples, and evidence. Scale might be more readable but if evidence is goal, we need specifics not "temperature". 

General Comments

• Responses can be included in public facing document even if the respondents' identities are anonymized 

Registrar Survey

Q3

• This question should be limited to new gTLDs. Registrars can offer hundreds of TLDs but not necessarily new gTLDs 
• Are these bands accurate? Add a couple of more between 1-100? 500+ seems like a good top band; splitting the middle band to 101-250 and 251-500 seems reasonable. 
• Treat this question as a gating question. If registrars answer "none" then the rest of the survey would be irrelevant to them. It is relevant to ask respondents why they don't offer to sale any new gTLDs, so add "If none, why” as a sub question.

Q4

• Sub Team agree with Susan's comments/edits. This question would guide the WG to understand what went well for Sunrise, what not. 
• ACTION ITEM: Susan to check what alternative word to "offer" is appropriate. 
• ACTION ITEM: AG to check whether the question about how long ROs ran Sunrise period for is included in the RO survey.

Q4b

• We do want to know registrars' experience and perspective about the length of the Sunrise period.
• Did you encounter Sunrises longer than 30 days or longer than 60 days? Start Date and End Date Sunrises have different durations and are different animals. The Sub Team mostly want to know whether anyone ran a super long Sunrise period. 
• Perhaps ask approximately how many Sunrise period of new gTLDs that Registrars encountered have 30 days, 60 days, 90 days, or longer?
• ICANN staff already have the information about the length of Sunrise period from ROs. Staff data includes Start/End Date Sunrise, duration, extremely long claims window for some gTLDs, etc. 
• Potentially jettison this question.

Q4c/Q4d

• Start/End Date Sunrises are quite different beasts. Contractual requirement is at least 30-day notice for Start Date Sunrise. Sub Team want to know if any registrar was given shorter notice than the contractual requirement. For End Date Sunrise, there is no contractual requirement to give any advance notice. 
• Get some info from registrars about how much in advance they got notice. It could correlate with the data we already have. 
• Use a metric/grid for these questions? Multiple choices may work better than a grid. Maybe no grid here because of the nature of the two different Sunrises.
• Potentially jettison these two questions as staff data provides answers.  

Q4e

• Need to ask for each type of Sunrise. Greg's question has been addressed here. 
• Would it be more useful to ask "Was the advance notice you received adequate?” “What is the amount of time for advance notice that worked well, and why?” Need to get to the "why" to understand the impact. What was the problem that caused the Sunrise period to be extended? Add "please explain why" and provide an open text field;
• AG to keep track of open text fields in the survey and put it as a placeholder and revisit if the survey is getting too long. 

Q4f

• If respondents answer yes, what do we do with that information? Does it matter to the registrars? If not, do we need this question? It is quite difficult to change the duration of a Sunrise period when already underway, based on anecdotal experience.

Q4g/Q4h

• Transform the questions into a grid: 1-2 days - sufficient (yes/no?); 2-4 days sufficient (yes/no?)...
• Adjust the bands, e.g., 1-2 days, 2-7 days, 8-14 days, 15+ days.

Q4i/Q4j

• These questions relate to the RO survey. Whatever we ask the ROs should be asked to the Registrars. Try using a grid here as long as we leave some open-ended option.
• We need more input from registries to understand any issue related to marketing, the cost of rollout interruption, etc.
• ACTION ITEM: Staff to check the notes with regard to the grid question in the RO survey. 

Q4k

• Sub Team agree with the additional bullet points suggested by Susan.

Q4l

• Defer to AG for the placement of this question. 

Q4m

• We want to know the benefits and disadvantages. Ask something later on about pros/cons, and park this question and move it down? 
• AG would word this question similarly to Q4k.

Q5 

• Q5 needs to move down to the claims section. 
• We do not only want to ask question about abandonment after receiving the trademark notices. We are not ruling out the idea of a general question. Respondents might be willing to provide info on other aspects that caused abandonment.
• If we ask any other types of abandonment, the question needs to be separated out, and respondents are welcome to express their concerns about business trade secrets, operation effectiveness, business model limitations, etc. Leave it open ended for respondents to voice their concerns. 

Q6

• Q6 needs to move down to the claims section. 
• Respondents can select more than one option in the dropdown menu.

Q7, Q8, Q9, Q10

• ACTION ITEM: AG to reference the original questions and redraft these questions to capture the intent.
• Original questions:
  • Have you had feedback from your customers regarding their experiences with registry reserved names in the context of that registry’s Sunrise – positive or negative (for example, regarding names matching a trade mark being unavailable for registration or only available at a premium price)  
  • How do you get notified of registry reserved names? Do you have experience that the advance TMCH notice is either adequate or inadequate?
  • Do you have any comments on the proposal that registries should publish their lists of reserved names?
  • Some in the Community have suggested that if a registry plans to release reserved names for registration they should be offered first to trademark owners with a mark in the TMCH. What would be the challenges, if any, to doing so, from a technical, operational or other perspective? Would there be a way to do this which would be less problematic? or more so? Consider for example multiple Sunrises, a right of first refusal, or some other process. If you have positive or negative experiences from the process when names collision names were released from reservation that you can share to illustrate your response please do so.

Q10 

• Revamp the grid completely? 
• We are interested in learning whether TM owners should have an opportunity to secure the released names even if the Sunrise period has finished. We want to ask what the benefits to/challenges for registrars are. Likert scale would not work. Anecdotes are needed. 
• Registries could put as many reserved names as they like. Various registrars would understand the question in different ways. There are technical, operational, administrative hassles if there is a rolling Sunrise period. There could be notification problem. Some ROs release names for different purposes and release names to a specific brand not to the public. There are a lot of baggage in this question. 
• Use the bullet points in Q4k as a starting point:

• No effect
• Reduced operating cost
• Increased operating cost
• Reduced technical requirements
• Increased technical requirements
• Reduced admin
• Increased admin
• Reduced customer understanding
• Increased customer understanding
• reduced volume of sunrise sales
• increased volume of sunrise sales
• Other: [OPEN TEXT FIELD]
• Don't know/Not sure

Q11

• Redraft the question to provide respondents an opportunity to explain "why" and understand what the real issue is. 

General Comments

• At the end of each survey section, provide a place to let respondents leave any general comment and tell 'horror/war stories'.