Hello Michael and all,

The recordings and transcripts of meetings when the original TM survey questions were being drafted can be found on the wiki pages below (before Analysis Group was selected through RFP):

08 Dec 2017: https://community.icann.org/x/lxVyB

15 Dec 2017: https://community.icann.org/x/KRxyB

05 Jan 2018: https://community.icann.org/x/YSByB

11 Jan 2018: https://community.icann.org/x/8SJyB

The recordings and transcripts of meetings when Analysis Group discussed with the Sub Team the proposed TM survey questions can be found on the wiki pages below:

08 Jun 2018: https://community.icann.org/x/Mi4FBQ

11 Jun 2018: https://community.icann.org/x/NC4FBQ

Please let us know if you need anything further information. Have a great weekend!

Thank you,

Ariel

Ariel Xinyue Liang

GNSO Policy Support Specialist

Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)

From: "Michael Graham (ELCA)" <migraham@expedia.com>
Date: Friday, July 20, 2018 at 7:49 PM
To: Ariel Liang <ariel.liang@icann.org>, "gnso-rpm-data@icann.org" <gnso-rpm-data@icann.org>
Subject: [Ext] RE: ACTIONS & NOTES: RPM Data Sub Team 20 July 2018

Could you provide links to the Recordings/Transcripts from our discussions of drafting the Survey questions – in particular those in which we discussed the Trademark Owners survey.

Thanks.

Michael R.

From: Gnso-rpm-data [mailto:gnso-rpm-data-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Ariel Liang
Sent: Friday, July 20, 2018 4:40 PM
To: gnso-rpm-data@icann.org
Subject: [Gnso-rpm-data] ACTIONS & NOTES: RPM Data Sub Team 20 July 2018

Dear All,

Please see below the action items and notes captured by staff from the Data Sub Team call held on 20 July 2018 (16:00-17:30 UTC).  Staff have posted to the wiki space the action items and notes.  Please note that these will be high-level notes and are not meant as a substitute for the recording. The recording, AC chat, and attendance records are posted on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/x/vQJdBQ [community.icann.org].

Have a great weekend everyone!

Best Regards,

Ariel

Ariel Xinyue Liang

GNSO Policy Support Specialist

Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)

==

ACTION ITEMS

• AG to include, in the introduction, a statement that “If you are an outside law firm or agent that receive this survey, please answer the survey with one specific client in mind” or something similar to that effect.
• AG to do a global change with respect to "you/your company" – this change may affect how certain questions are worded.
• AG to remove Q1.
• AG to move Q2 after Q3.
• AG to reword the Q5a so the respondents can provide numbers directly instead of percentages, with options like 1-5, 6-10, 10-20, etc.
• AG to change "enough" to "any" in Q5b.
• AG to remove Q6.
• AG to change the added phrase in Q8b to: "Did you register a domain name that matches your trademark?" or “Have you registered a domain name that incorporates your trademark?”
• AG to use Kristine's suggested wording in Q9.
• AG to remove Q13a.
• AG to change "type" to "timing" for the bullet 4 in Q17.
• AG to delete Q18.
• AG to include Q21 in BOTH Sunrise & Claims surveys if we split the full TM survey.
• AG to create an introductory paragraph before Q22, defining NORN and setting context per Kristine's suggestion. Check Kristine's comment in the Google doc.
• AG to provide estimated dates for survey finalization & launch, including the date when they will begin issuing the surveys on a rolling basis.
• AG to circulate the revised surveys to the Sub Team as soon as they are ready on a rolling basis
• Kristine to suggest rewording for Q13.
• Kristine to provide suggestion/input to Q26.
• Staff to tentatively schedule a Data Sub Team call on Wed, 25 July at 17:00-18:30 UTC (DONE)

NOTES

General Comments

• To provide respondents the correct expectation of time needed to complete the surveys, AG will share a preview of the full surveys. AG also agrees to cut up the TM survey into shorter ones (i.e., Sunrise, Claims, Reserved Names), and invite the respondents to select which survey(s) to take.
• Not sure whether we should ask respondents to choose the survey(s) to take.

Trademark Owners Survey

General Comments

• Referencing you or your company without referencing outside counsel is a concern.
• We should find out on whose behalf the respondents are answering the questions. For the person answering the questions, ask “who are you?”
• Where this survey is going to? e.g., law firm, business, trademark owners, etc.? Outside counsel can answer the survey. Law firm can forward the survey to their clients.
• ACTION ITEM: AG to include, in the introduction, a statement that “If you are an outside law firm or agent that receive this survey, please answer the survey with one specific client in mind” or something similar to that effect.
• ACTION ITEM: AG to do a global change with respect to "you/your company" – this change may affect how certain questions are worded.
• Is there a question about how large is your company? On behalf of what part of your company you are responding to the survey?
• Surveys like this will usually end up at the IP/TM group of a company.
• Preserving anonymity is important, but we can add an option question for people to identify themselves if people are willing to answer.
• For large company, there may be more people that can answer such survey, but this is not a problem. Do not limit the number of people who can answer the survey.
• Based on INTA experience, if we ask the type of company and the size of company, and ask respondents to identify themselves, the impression of the lack of anonymity would render zero response, as the respondents would be very skeptical.
• INTA asked respondents to identify whether they are nonprofit, for profit, and their revenue. Company size does not strictly correspond to company spend. Spend impacts whether TM owners register their trademark in the TMCH, as well as their answers to other follow-up question. If we ask people to self-identify, they need to provide info on their company type and revenue.
• Some questions are related to each other. If we split the survey, it may affect these questions.
• We should do a deeper study of all the questions and see whether there are any overlapped/interconnected questions that should be addressed. It seems only two questions would be impacted so far.

Q1

• ACTION ITEM: AG to remove this question.

Q2

• ACTION ITEM: AG to move it after Q3

Q3

• Do not use the word 'Counsel', just use 'Agent’. An in-house person is not necessarily legal counsel; they can be in-house IT groups, paralegals, etc.
• If we have external counsel answering the questions, they have to put themselves in the shoe for one specific client.
• Reword the question to: "Are you responding on behalf a company, or on behalf of a client?"
• Lori does not like "on behalf of" because it doesn't get straight to "inside", "outside" issue.  Perhaps reword it as “Are you responding as an employee of your company or as an outside service provider?”

Q4

• Can merge with Q1. How many trademarks does the company that you are answering the question for own? If it is 0, terminate the survey.

Q5a

• ACTION ITEM: AG to reword the question so the respondents can provide numbers directly instead of percentages, with options like 1-5, 6-10, 10-20, etc.

Q5b

• ACTION ITEM: AG to change "enough" to "any".

Q6

• ACTION ITEM: AG to remove this question

Q7

• No need to get into the specifics in the wording of the question.

Q7a

• Added wording intends to clarify what is being asked

Q8b

• ACTION ITEM: AG to change the added phrase to: "Did you register a domain name that matches your trademark?" or “Have you registered a domain name that incorporates your trademark?”

Q9

• If we split the survey, and if respondents do the Claims section later, we no longer have the proactive/reactive remedies as the first part of the survey. We might end up not getting this question in relations to Sunrise.
• ACTION ITEM: AG to use Kristine's suggested wording.

Q10d

• Leave the question open ended
• Or change "likely" to "able"?
• Simplify the question; don't use the Likert scale and keep the text box in.
• We heard from IT people that there are budget hurdles. We want to give them the opportunity to provide the anecdotal evidence. "Do you want to tell us how it affected your ability?" They can talk about one oddball experience via the open text box.
• If we have a Likert scale, the options can be: more likely, less likely, completely unable, other ____
• Be more precise for the Likert scale. "High price" or "low price" make me more likely, less likely, completely unable, other___

Q13a

• ACTION ITEM: AG to remove this question.

Q13c

• Take out everything before the second bullet point “[If "Yes"] Do you know if any of those were due to...”
• Reword the question to "Do you know any refusal is based on the string being on the reserved name list?"
• Some registry operators may have given the domain names to brand owners. This is viewed as a hostile act. That's why Q13c is being asked. There may be a better way to shorten Q13 and its sub questions.
• Remove the last bullet "[IF “Yes”] Do you know if any of those were due to the string being on the reserved name list? [MULTIPLE CHOICE]". This may be very rarely answered.
• ACTION ITEM: Kristine to suggest rewording for Q13

Q17

• During Sunrise Period, TM owners may need more authorization to do the spend. A lot of information about strategy / portfolio management is proprietary. Many portfolio managers operate on shoestring budget. So when Respondents see the question, they may interpret it as you need budget approval or strategy approval. It is outside the range of their spend or strategy.
• The added phrase "from managers or the client" seems sufficient in bullet 3.
• The inside baseball question is the one about the "type of Sunrise period" question. If you don't have a struggle about which type of Sunrise period to choose, you wouldn't be able to answer the question.
• ACTION ITEM: AG to change "type" to "timing" for the bullet 4.

Q18

• ACTION ITEM: AG to delete the question.
• We are trying to understand how effective Sunrise is. If TM owners did not participate in it, do they still need to do a lot of reactive stuff? This question belongs in Claims, so should be deleted in this section. Some Claims questions may already cover it.

Q21

• If we split the survey, this question should be moved to the end, as it covers both Sunrise and Claims.
• ACTION ITEM: AG to include this question in BOTH Sunrise & Claims surveys if we split the full TM survey.

Q22

• We should define NORN. This is the first question in the new survey. Include an introductory paragraph. The introductory paragraph can define the NORN. Then follow that introduction with Q22. It makes sense to flag to people that we are talking about Claims in this new section of the survey, and this approach can shorten Q22.
• ACTION ITEM: AG to create an introductory paragraph defining NORN and setting context per Kristine's suggestion. Check Kristine's comment in the Google doc.

Q26

• We want to know whether TM owners file a UDRP as a result of NORN. If you have filed a UDRP, did you file against 'exact match', 'near match', 'something match'. We are trying to understand whether "exact match" is sufficient. Question is whether Claims Notice is effective. If a UDRP challenge has been successful and it is not an exact match, then that may necessitate the evaluation of the rule with regard to exact match.
• Staff have extracted out the data of UDRP cases filed up to the end of 2017. We will get a refresh of the data in the TMCH database and notices sent, and align the notices to the domain registered. There would not be exact alignment. TM owners could have gotten a notice, but they may not file UDRP three months after, etc.
• There could also be other factors that a TM owner doesn't file UDRP. NORNs do not necessarily correspond to UDRP cases filed.
• ACTION ITEM: Kristine to provide suggestion/input to Q26.