I'm not as pessimistic, especially if we screen for people who've done similar things in the past (not impossible with large internet survey bases like SurveyMonkey). Regardless of what you think about asking"would you be deterred" straight out, there are other important questions that this group could readily answer--we should be asking questions about what they would think the notice *meant* if they got it. That, even more than "what would you do in response," would provide data, including but not at all limited to useful data about the likelihood of deterrence. Rebecca Tushnet Frank Stanton Professor of First Amendment Law, Harvard Law School 703 593 6759 ________________________________ From: Kurt Pritz <kurt@kjpritz.com> Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2017 9:04:01 AM To: Tushnet, Rebecca Cc: Ariel Liang; gnso-rpm-data@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-rpm-data] Proposed agenda and updated tables for the RPM Data Sub Team call this Friday Hi Rebecca: I agree with you. The point I an making is that I think the data will be pretty sparse among those who have never or not recently registered a domain but now are considering that and then ask them to imagine the process for registering the domain and then ask them to imagine of they would be put off by a claims notice. I see few data points and even fewer reliable ones. I see low chance of success here. Do you have anything ideas on how to go about this in another way? Best regards, Kurt On Oct 23, 2017, at 2:31 PM, Tushnet, Rebecca <rtushnet@law.harvard.edu<mailto:rtushnet@law.harvard.edu>> wrote: My conception is a relatively standard "potential consumer" definition: people who haven't recently registered a new gTLD but would consider doing so, perhaps screened for whether they'd ever registered a domain name as well as whether they'd consider doing so for a new gTLD. This is the kind of group that internet surveys can plausibly reach. Rebecca Tushnet Frank Stanton Professor of First Amendment Law, Harvard Law School 703 593 6759 ________________________________ From: gnso-rpm-data-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-data-bounces@icann.org> <gnso-rpm-data-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-data-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Kurt Pritz <kurt@kjpritz.com<mailto:kurt@kjpritz.com>> Sent: Monday, October 23, 2017 5:26:58 PM To: Ariel Liang Cc: gnso-rpm-data@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-data@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-rpm-data] Proposed agenda and updated tables for the RPM Data Sub Team call this Friday Hi Ariel: Thanks for your help. Yes, please move the questions up to no. 4. Hi everyone: Here is how I don’t have a clue: I saw the no. 5 first column had the word “registrant” and thought that one was mine. Nonetheless, I think the same set of questions will work for no.4 as well, with some additions that I will make later. My question is, what is a potential registrant? I don’t see how we gain any useful, reliable information here. Do we ask, “if you were to ever register a domain name and saw this statement, would you be scared off?” It seems a little odd to me. I know there is a good answer to this and I am embarrassed to be asking: what is the distinction between a registrant and potential registrant that can be measured in a survey or other type of data gathering? Thanks everyone and sorry for the misstep. Kurt. Sent from my iPhone On Oct 23, 2017, at 12:39 PM, Ariel Liang <ariel.liang@icann.org<mailto:ariel.liang@icann.org>> wrote: Dear Kurt and All, Thank you, Kurt, for providing your input in Table 1. To facilitate the development of the suggested draft questions, we have converted the Data Request Table document into a Google Document. Kurt’s input has been pasted into the Google Doc. Data Sub Team members and Staff have comment access: https://docs.google.com/a/icann.org/document/d/10qENwqvozS-TZfJiVOx5MG71YIsq... ‘comment access’ is to keep track of who made what comments/edits). Please provide your suggested draft questions directly in your assigned sections in this Google Doc. You may also comment on others’ suggested draft questions. Section 1 New gTLD Registry Operators (RO): Kristine Dorrain (with help from Susan Payne and Kurt Pritz) Section 2 Registrars: Susan Payne Section 3 Trademark & Brand Owners: Michael Graham Section 4 Domain Name Registrants: Kurt Pritz Section 5 Potential Registrants: Rebecca Tushnet Section 6 Public Interest Groups and Trade Associations: Lori Schulman & Michael Graham Kurt, we noticed that you provided suggested draft question in Section 5 of Table 1. If it is misplaced, please let me know and I will move them to Section 4. If they are meant for Section 5, could you please be so kind to continue with your assigned sections? Kiran, while your name has not been assigned to any section, you have the option to volunteer to assist whoever may need it. Last, the google doc is linked from a page<https://community.icann.org/x/oZhEB> within the Sub Team wiki workspace for reference. Thank you everyone for your time and contribution! Best Regards Ariel Ariel Xinyue Liang Policy Analyst | Washington, DC Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) From: <gnso-rpm-data-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-data-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Kurt Pritz <kurt@kjpritz.com<mailto:kurt@kjpritz.com>> Date: Monday, October 23, 2017 at 1:16 PM To: Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>> Cc: "gnso-rpm-data@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-data@icann.org>" <gnso-rpm-data@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-data@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-rpm-data] Proposed agenda and updated tables for the RPM Data Sub Team call this Friday Hi Everyone: Attached is my attempt at formulating the GNSO questions to registrants in a way to engender the responses and data we are seeking. (See question 6.) Is this what we had in mind? I need some advice: The GNSO approved formulation calls for testing trademark claims in “different languages.” How many different languages do we think we will need to satisfy whoever it is that included that phrase in the questions? Thoughts for constructing the survey, where we would want 1000+ respondents to be statistically meaningful: 1) I am against using existing stakeholder groups to take this survey out to their “members” as that will result in non-random samples and results that are otherwise skewed. 2) The most inexpensive way to conduct the survey is for registrars to reach out to their registrants. Registrars could offer discounts on domain renewals for taking the survey (and state the importance of participating). ICANN can fund the discounts and administrative costs. (I don’t know if registrars would do this but I am suggesting this.) 3) An outside survey firm could do this fairly cheaply. It might become expensive because so few people are registrants - they might have to contact 30 panelists or more to find one registrant. Mary - I am sorry I did not put this directly into our wiki document. Would you mind doing that? Comments welcome on the substance and the methodology & thanks, Kurt