Dear All,

Please see below the action items and notes captured by staff from the Data Sub Team call held on 25 July 2018 (17:00-18:30 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/iwBpBQ.

Best Regards,

Ariel

Ariel Xinyue Liang

GNSO Policy Support Specialist

Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)

==

ACTION ITEMS

• AG to rephrase Q22b to "Have any of the domain name applicant who have received the Claims Notice informed you that they do not understand the Claims Notice?"
• AG to replace the grids in Q26a/Q26b with open ended questions and reference suggested wordings in the note & Google Doc.
• AG to confirm whether there is a gating question in the Registrar Survey about “Do you offer any new gTLDs?”, or something similar to that effect.  
• AG to include the point of outreach to smaller TM owners in the cover note of the TM survey and stress that survey outreach needs to be as broad as possible.
• Staff to email the full WG to solicit 3-4 volunteers for Beta Testing. Beta tester do not need to be familiar with the survey questions.
• Staff to check with GDD whether we can distribute the survey only to the registrars that have signed the 2013 RAA.
• Staff to reach out to IPC/BC/CSG leadership to request help distributing the survey to their membership & mailing list, emphasizing the outreach to smaller TM owners.  
• Staff to check with Brian for TM survey distribution to ECTA: http://www.ecta.org/committees/detail/internet-committee.
• Staff to check with Lori about TM survey distribution to INTA and INTA’s Internet and Data Protection Committee
• Staff to contact all membership in the multistakeholder community (through their leadership), particularly IPC/BC/CSG, for the distribution of the actual/potential registrant survey.
• Staff to check with Comms Team about icann.org announcement.
• Susan to help distribute the survey to Cyberspace Team (MARQUES corollary) and the CITMA Internet Committee

NOTES

I. Revised TM Survey

Q21a.

• Lori suggests "Why did you rank these as you did"?

Q22

• Provide a ready definition of NORN/Notice of Registered Name (maybe via that little question mark or a hyperlink in the survey question)? Lori to check the suggested wording.

Q22b

• ACTION ITEM: AG to rephrase the question to "Have any of the domain name applicant who have received the Claims Notice informed you that they do not understand the Claims Notice?"

Q26a / Q26b

• Not sure whether the table is helpful. Asking open ended question would more likely get more accurate numbers and make it less intimidating.
• Replace both grids with sub questions, for example: How many total UDRP, URS, litigation cases have you filed against new gTLDs? How many of them received NORN? How many of them are exact matches? How many of these domain names are exact match but include additional elements? How many have creative spelling? Did you win? How many of those did you win?
• Make the questions optional in case the respondents cannot answer.
• Four types of claims: 

1. Where you received a NORN,
2. Where the domain name was an exact match of a trademark your recorded with the TMCH,
3. Where the domain name included an exact match of a trademark you recorded with the TMCH with other words or characters,
4. Where the domain name included a typographic or other variant of a trademark you recorded with the TMC.

• The only issue is that respondents can check 1) plus any of the others. 1) and 2) could overlap and it would make it difficult for analyzing the data.
• Why are we asking the question? We are trying to figure out how effective is the NORN, as it is based on exact matches.
• All of these sub questions refer to the exact match to a trademark that a brand owner recorded in the TMCH. Insert this language/clarification.
• ACTION ITEM: AG to replace the grids with open ended questions and reference suggested wordings in the note & Google Doc.

After Q27c

• If we split up the survey, the question about “Sunrise vs. Claims, which is more useful” needs to appear at the end of each shorter surveys.

II. Next Steps and Timeline

• Not anticipating further meetings about the further revised surveys, but staff/AG will invite the lead authors/Sub Team to review the further revised version. For the TM survey, Michael and Lori in particular should have an opportunity to review the changes.
• AG to circulate the final version of surveys by the end of this week (week of 23 July).
• Final surveys (after review/approval by the lead authors/Sub Teams) will be sent to the full WG as a FYI, together with the Inception Report.
• AG to program the surveys next week (week of 30 July).
• Beta testing of the survey, early part of the week of 6 Aug.
• ACTION ITEM: Staff to email the full WG to solicit 3-4 volunteers for Beta Testing. Beta tester do not need to be familiar with the survey questions.
• Surveys would be released on a rolling basis in the week of 6 August after Beta Testing.
• AG will provide frequent updates on the number of responses received on each survey.
• Second full WG meeting in Sep (Sep 12) to begin reviewing the survey results.

III. Survey Distribution Plan

2. Registrar

• We only need registrars that have signed the latest version of RAA to respond to the survey.
• ACTION ITEM: AG to confirm whether there is a gating question about “Do you offer any new gTLDs?”, or something similar to that effect.  
• ACTION ITEM: Staff to check with GDD whether we can distribute the survey only to the registrars that have signed the 2013 RAA.

3. TM

• Should also target smaller companies that may have limited participation or access to the new gTLDs. Some concerns about the INTA survey is that the correspondents are mostly large companies. We should reach law firms that fill out the survey on behalf of their TM clients. They may be dealing with a good number of smaller companies.
• ACTION ITEM: AG to include the point of outreach to smaller TM owners in the cover note of the TM survey and stress that survey outreach needs to be as broad as possible.
• ACTION ITEM: Staff to reach out to IPC/BC/CSG leadership to request help distributing the survey to their membership & mailing list, emphasizing the outreach to smaller TM owners.  
• ACTION ITEM: Staff to check with Brian about TM survey distribution to ECTA: http://www.ecta.org/committees/detail/internet-committee.
• ACTION ITEM: Staff to check with Lori about survey distribution to INTA and INTA’s Internet and Data Protection Committee
• ACTION ITEM: Susan to help distribute the survey to Cyberspace Team (MARQUES corollary) and the CITMA Internet Committee

4. Actual Registrant

• NCSG/NCUC/NPOC/At-Large are a narrow group of registrants as they are actively engaged in ICANN. It’s important that we try to get a spread across the universe of domain registrants.  For that, distributing to customers of a selection of registrars seems to me to be the most diverse target group, provided that they do not self-select who they contact – although, I agree that they may be unwilling to do this.
• Contacting some specific registrars to get their buy-in would seem to be the best hope (rather than going via the RrSG).
• ACTION ITEM: Staff to contact all membership in the multistakeholder community (through their leadership), particularly IPC/BC/CSG, for the distribution of the actual registrant survey.

5. Potential Registrant

• ACTION ITEM: Staff to contact all membership in the multistakeholder community (through their leadership), particularly IPC/BC/CSG, for the distribution of the potential registrant survey.

6. Other Channels

• ACTION ITEM: Staff to check with Comms Team about icann.org announcement.