Dear Data Sub Team members,
Michael got back to staff about his feedback to testers’ comments and Susan’s input. There are a few changes to the feedback we provided to Analysis Group yesterday, and please see changes in
red text in line. Specifically, the changes apply to
General Comment, Q2, Q6, Q15, Q18, and Q19. We already informed Analysis Group this update.
Thank you for your help, Michael!
Best Regards,
Mary, Julie, Ariel & Berry
===
General Comment:
- Do a global change of replacing “company” with “company/organization” in all applicable survey questions and answer options in order to cover the non-profit, non-commercial entities
- Add “approximately” in an appropriate place in ALL applicable questions where respondents are asked to provide volume/number/range, etc. Please apply this change to ALL questions in ALL surveys that this
type of question applies.
- Please clarify that in this survey, we are specifically asking questions about new gTLDs, not legacy TLDs such as .com, .org, .net, or country code top level domains such as .us, .eu, .cn. Please use the
same clarification approach used in the Registrant survey.
- Place the original Q2 AFTER the original Q3
Q0: Approximately how many trademark registrations does your company own?
- If a respondent selects “don’t know/not sure”, he/she should be able to continue with the rest of the survey.
Q1: Approximately how many of your company’s trademarks have been recorded with the Trademark Clearinghouse (TMCH)?
- If a respondent selects “don’t know/not sure”, he/she should be able to continue with the rest of the survey.
Q2: How many domain names matching any of your company’s trademarks have you applied to register during any new generic top-level domain (gTLD) Sunrise Period?
- Add “Approximately” at the beginning of the question.
- Add “(select this option only if there is no other source or person that can supply an approximate number)” after “Don’t know / Not sure”
- If someone selects “not sure/don’t know”, the survey should
NOT terminate, and the respondent should be able to proceed.
Q3: Has your company registered a domain name matching any of your company's trademarks in a new generic top-level domain (new gTLD)?
- Provide examples of new gTLDs. Consider adding the pop-up message that includes the list of new gTLDs strings used in the registrant survey.
Q5: Should Registry Operators be required to publicly publish their reserved names lists?
- This question can be included in the registrant survey, if not too late for implementation.
AG/RN SSI – please advise.
Q6: In the event a Registry has placed terms on its reserved names list and later decides to release them for registration, should the Registry be required to provide notice of the release to Trademark Owners who
have recorded trademarks in the Trademark Clearinghouse (TMCH)?
Add “all” before “Trademark Owners” to better differentiate this question to the one after the next
(no change to the original Q6)
Q9: Has your company ever brought a Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy (UDRP), Uniform Rapid Suspension System (URS), or litigation proceeding against a domain name registered
in a new generic top-level domain (gTLD)? If yes, approximately how many?
Q10: In approximately how many of the UDRP, URS, or litigation cases that you brought against a domain name in a new gTLD was the domain name at issue an exact match of your company’s trademark as recorded in the Trademark Clearinghouse?
If you are uncertain of the number, you may skip this question.
- Replace “against” with “in respect of” – you bring a proceeding against someone, in respect of something.
Q11: In approximately how many of the UDRP, URS, or litigation cases that you brought against a domain name in a new gTLD was the domain name at issue a “creative misspelling” of your company’s trademark? If you
are uncertain of the number, you may skip this question.
- Replace “against” with “in respect of” – you bring a proceeding against someone, in respect of something.
Q12: In approximately how many of the UDRP, URS, or litigation cases that you brought against a domain name in a new gTLD was the domain name at issue a combination of an exact match of your
company’s trademark as recorded in the Trademark Clearinghouse and some other terms or characters? If you are uncertain of the number, you may skip this question.
- Replace “against” with “in respect of” – you bring a proceeding against someone, in respect of something.
Q13: Approximately how many of the UDRP, URS, or litigation cases that you brought against a domain name in a new gTLD were filed for other reasons? If you are uncertain of the number, you
may skip this question.
- Replace “against” with “in respect of” – you bring a proceeding against someone, in respect of something.
Q14: Please indicate for what other reason(s) your company filed a Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy (UDRP), Uniform Rapid Suspension System (URS), or litigation proceeding against domain name applications.
If you prefer to not respond, you may skip this question.
- Replace “against” with “in respect of” – you bring a proceeding against someone, in respect of something.
Q15: How did price affect your company’s decision to seek Sunrise Period registrations?
- We should be asking about higher or lower price throughout the survey. Otherwise theoretically a respondent could have in mind that the lower the price the more likely they are to register and tick option
2, whereas someone else could be thinking about higher price and tick option 4 – when we get the results we won’t know what they were thinking.
Please clarify whether we are asking higher or lower price in the survey and make it consistent for similar type of price related questions
(e.g., In what new generic top-level domains (gTLDs), if any, did your company decide not to seek a Sunrise Period registration due to price?).
Could we change the Likert scale to ask effects of “Higher Prices made it less likely my company would register a domain name” to “Lower Prices made it more likely my company would register a domain name” etc.?
Q18: Would a 60-day Sunrise Period be preferable to a 30-day period?
- Start date and end date sunrises are different and the surveys keep conflating them. We can still get feedback on whether 60 days is viewed as better than 30 days, but it does not
take into account that the amount of notice you get is different and that that the time at which names are allocated is also different.
Can AG provide suggestions to make the question clearer and not to conflate the start date/end date sunrises?
Leave question as it is or change to “Would a longer Sunrise period be preferable to the current 30-day period?”
Q19: In how many of these cases were you successful? If you are uncertain of the number, you may skip this question.
- Add “Don’t know / Not sure” as an option.