All Apologies in advance for being blunt. I am not seeking to cast blame on anyone, but I am extremely concerned that this exercise is being pushed forward with such haste. It is completely unreasonable and unrealistic to expect us all to have read all these documents, considered the extensive redlines and comments, and be in a position to discuss this meaningfully in the space of 4 hours from them landing in our Inboxes. Half of our subgroup are on the US West Coast – they are only just waking up so they don’t even get that long! I may have the advantage of this being the middle of my working day, but I still have multiple other calls on my time this afternoon. The meeting later this afternoon was set when we were due to receive these documents on Tuesday. Frankly, even that was a ludicrously short turn-around time, but that’s academic, since we didn’t receive the documents on Tuesday (and just to be clear, I’m not blaming AG for missing the deadline – they also have been given a wholly unrealistic timeline). I know that there is pressure to move this survey exercise along. I’ve been vocal myself about concerns on the WG timeline, but those concerns have been as much about the need to be realistic about what tasks should be undertaken and how long they will take. The RFP exercise to appoint AG has taken months (which is no surprise to me). It’s unfair and false economy to try to make up the time by truncating the preparatory work on the actual surveys. It’s wholly unreasonable to allow only 2-3 weeks for AG to review the initial input from the Subteam, create surveys, discuss and finalise with the Subteam, identify survey respondents, report to the full WG, and get these surveys deployed. We seem to be working towards a completely arbitrary date for reporting to the full WG – what is the reason for this 13 June deadline? We aren’t discussing on a WG call before, or during Panama, so what’s the justification for this? Whilst I have strongly questioned the value of this whole exercise from the outset, I, and the others on this subgroup, have also made a commitment to do what we can to try to ensure that some useful information will be generated. Without adequate consideration and input into the surveys before they are launched we are setting this whole exercise up for failure, which will be a shameful waste of the time spent to date and ICANN’s financial resources. Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy | Valideus Ltd E: susan.payne@valideus.com<mailto:susan.payne@valideus.com> D: +44 20 7421 8255 T: +44 20 7421 8299 M: +44 7971 661175 From: Gnso-rpm-data [mailto:gnso-rpm-data-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Ariel Liang Sent: 06 June 2018 14:00 To: gnso-rpm-data@icann.org Subject: [Gnso-rpm-data] Proposed Sunrise & Claims Survey Questions Dear Data Sub Team Members, In preparation for today’s meeting at 17:00 UTC, please find attached the redline and clean versions of the proposed Sunrise & Claims survey questions from the Analysis Group. Kindly see below the text provided by the Analysis Group to accompany the files. Apologies for the short time window for circulating the proposed survey questions, and we hope you will have a chance to review them prior to the call. Please see the proposed agenda for today’s meeting below: 1. Review agenda 2. Discussion of the proposed survey questions and suggested changes by Analysis Group 3. AOB All files attached to this email are also uploaded on the agenda wiki page here: https://community.icann.org/x/FysFBQ Best Regards, Mary, Julie, Ariel, and Berry ---------- Text from Analysis Group -------- Dear All, Attached please find our suggested revisions to the survey questions for each target group of the RPM survey (and, for reference, the Word version of the appendix to the RFP). We copied the questions from the RFP appendix into a Word document to follow a questionnaire format and have suggested edits to the survey in redline. We have also attached a clean version of each revised document. It may be easiest to review the clean version of our documents next to the RFP appendix, as the versions with tracked changes can be more difficult to follow. Please note that there may be minor formatting inconsistencies across the documents, as well as some minor differences in similar questions. We will clean these up this week, but wanted to provide you with the revised questions as soon as possible. As we discussed last week, the goal of our proposed edits is to limit the length of the survey while still allowing the capture of as much information as possible. To the extent possible, we converted open-ended questions to multiple choice. In some instances, we would like to request assistance with defining the multiple choice answers. In those instances, we have placed the request in double square brackets and highlighted the text in yellow. For some "anecdotal" questions, we could not think of an easy or clear way to translate the questions into closed-end responses. In those cases, we will allow open-text responses (marked by "open text field" responses). We removed some questions from several of the surveys, but believe more should still be removed from both the registry and trademark holder surveys. We have noted this in the relevant Word documents, and are hoping you can assist us in identifying several questions in each survey to remove. Best, Stacey and Greg Stacey Chan, Ph.D. | Manager Analysis Group, Inc. | Economic, Financial, and Strategy Consulting 1900 16th Street, Suite 1100, Denver, CO 80202 720-963-5307 (direct) | 720-963-5300 (main) stacey.chan@analysisgroup.com<mailto:stacey.chan@analysisgroup.com> l www.analysisgroup.com<http://www.analysisgroup.com>