Dear all, Below are the action items staff captured from the RPM Data Sub Team meeting today (15 December): Action Items: -- Staff will prepare a redline revised Google document and PDF based on the proposed edits below. -- Staff will research the purpose of the 30-day minimum Sunrise Period. -- The call on 22 December will be canceled. Staff will send a Doodle poll to determine the preference to fix the recurring day and time for the meetings starting the first week in January, including times on Thursday and Friday. Proposed Edits, Section 3, Survey of TM & Brand Owners, see: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1EUXC03ccuYhRMa_X4hDCPrq88KkF6qBRkL6sCcNu... Charter question #4, page 15: Anecdotal question 3: Delete the question: "Do you believe registries will have any issue with this requirement?" Anecdotal question 4: New question: “Has your participation in Sunrise Period registration been affected by Registry Operator reservation of names? If so, how?” Data question 1: “Do you know if any of your trademarks have been reserved by any New gTLD Registry operators?” -- Change to, "Have you tried to register a name in sunrise and could not? Were you informed or do you know the reason for non-registration and if so what was it?” Might also add, “If you contacted the registry operator were you able to get the name released to register?" and "Could you give us an example of a name that you couldn't register in the Sunrise Period?" Perhaps also, "Were you able to get the name released to registration despite the first refusal?" or "What did they do if anything?” Maybe a follow up question is "Do you know if any of those were due to the string being on the reserved name list, if so please give specific examples." Data question 2: Delete the question: “Has your participation in Sunrise Period registration been affected by Registry Operator reservation of names? If so, how?” Charter question #5, page 17: -- Note that we need to identify the purpose as a preface to these questions. Action to staff: Research the purpose of the 30-day minimum. -- Also, there were two forms of Sunrise. Maybe we explain the two mechanisms for implementation and include a question, "Which of the forms do you believe gave trademark owners the best ability to participate?" -- We have data on how many of each that there were, but end date was more commonly offered, and we know which gTLD ran which. For numbers, we therefore know how many gTLDs did each type and total registrations in each. However, we cannot determine which names were registered when within either a start-date or end-date sunrise -- The question is whether or not the period was sufficient for a trademark owner to make a registration or not. Are we also trying to find out whether one was better? Not sure how to phrase the question if that is the case. Anecdotal question 1: Change to, "Do you think the 30-day minimum for a Sunrise Period provides a sufficient period for trademark owners to take advantage of the Sunrise Period?" Add a new question following or before question 1: "Did you attempt to register a name in a Sunrise Period and Sunrise was no longer available?" "If you were unable to register, if so, why?" "Were you confused about the ending date of the Sunrise Period registration window?" Anecdotal question 2: Seems to get subsumed if we rephrase question 1 and add new questions (above). Anecdotal question 3: Seems to be misleading. Anecdotal question 5: Add "why not?" Anecdotal question 6: Split into two questions, but note that we are just giving guidance to the survey designers. The notes from the call are posted to the Sub Team wiki space, together with the call recording, transcript and Adobe Connect chat and attendance records. Best Regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director