Proposed agenda and updated tables for the RPM Data Sub Team call this Friday
Dear RPM Data Sub Team members, Please find attached the updated tables from the Working Group’s data request that was approved by the GNSO Council. As requested, we have done the following: * Broken up the original table into two tables – Table 1 for all the survey work; Table 2 for the other work to be undertaken by staff and others (e.g. researchers, contractors); * Added a third column to Table 1 to include the specific Charter question(s) to which that specific data request is directed; * Added a fourth column to Table 1 for Sub Team draft questions, notes and other guidance to be provided to the professional survey designer; and * Provided staff updates to all the research tasks listed in Table 2. While the resulting document is fairly long, you will see that this is because of pasting the relevant Charter questions, some of which are quite lengthy. We have not changed any of the content from the tables that were part of the Council-approved request. For an agenda for this Friday’s call at 1600 UTC, staff would like to propose the following: 1. Roll call 2. Select/elect Sub Team chair(s) 3. Review staff update on Table 2, for timing and to provide any needed specific guidance to staff 4. Discuss updated Table 1, including assigning volunteers to each set of questions for the target groups 5. Planning for ICANN60 – agenda for Sub Team session Thanks and cheers Mary
I have a preexisting commitment that makes it impossible for me to join this call. Have a good and productive meeting. For those who are heading to ICANN 60, see you there and safe travel. Best, Philip Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/Cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: gnso-rpm-data-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-data-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mary Wong Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2017 2:23 PM To: gnso-rpm-data@icann.org Subject: [Gnso-rpm-data] Proposed agenda and updated tables for the RPM Data Sub Team call this Friday Dear RPM Data Sub Team members, Please find attached the updated tables from the Working Group’s data request that was approved by the GNSO Council. As requested, we have done the following: * Broken up the original table into two tables – Table 1 for all the survey work; Table 2 for the other work to be undertaken by staff and others (e.g. researchers, contractors); * Added a third column to Table 1 to include the specific Charter question(s) to which that specific data request is directed; * Added a fourth column to Table 1 for Sub Team draft questions, notes and other guidance to be provided to the professional survey designer; and * Provided staff updates to all the research tasks listed in Table 2. While the resulting document is fairly long, you will see that this is because of pasting the relevant Charter questions, some of which are quite lengthy. We have not changed any of the content from the tables that were part of the Council-approved request. For an agenda for this Friday’s call at 1600 UTC, staff would like to propose the following: 1. Roll call 2. Select/elect Sub Team chair(s) 3. Review staff update on Table 2, for timing and to provide any needed specific guidance to staff 4. Discuss updated Table 1, including assigning volunteers to each set of questions for the target groups 5. Planning for ICANN60 – agenda for Sub Team session Thanks and cheers Mary
Hi Philip, Thank you for this, we have noted your apology for this meeting. Kind regards, Michelle From: <gnso-rpm-data-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-data-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>> Date: Thursday, October 19, 2017 at 6:49 PM To: Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>>, "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 I have a preexisting commitment that makes it impossible for me to join this call. Have a good and productive meeting. For those who are heading to ICANN 60, see you there and safe travel. Best, Philip Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/Cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: gnso-rpm-data-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-data-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rpm-data-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mary Wong Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2017 2:23 PM To: gnso-rpm-data@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-data@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-rpm-data] Proposed agenda and updated tables for the RPM Data Sub Team call this Friday Dear RPM Data Sub Team members, Please find attached the updated tables from the Working Group's data request that was approved by the GNSO Council. As requested, we have done the following: * Broken up the original table into two tables - Table 1 for all the survey work; Table 2 for the other work to be undertaken by staff and others (e.g. researchers, contractors); * Added a third column to Table 1 to include the specific Charter question(s) to which that specific data request is directed; * Added a fourth column to Table 1 for Sub Team draft questions, notes and other guidance to be provided to the professional survey designer; and * Provided staff updates to all the research tasks listed in Table 2. While the resulting document is fairly long, you will see that this is because of pasting the relevant Charter questions, some of which are quite lengthy. We have not changed any of the content from the tables that were part of the Council-approved request. For an agenda for this Friday's call at 1600 UTC, staff would like to propose the following: 1. Roll call 2. Select/elect Sub Team chair(s) 3. Review staff update on Table 2, for timing and to provide any needed specific guidance to staff 4. Discuss updated Table 1, including assigning volunteers to each set of questions for the target groups 5. Planning for ICANN60 - agenda for Sub Team session Thanks and cheers Mary
I also have a pre-existing commitment and will join for the first half of the call only. My apologies. Thanks, Kristine From: gnso-rpm-data-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-data-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Michelle DeSmyter Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2017 5:05 PM To: Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com>; Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org>; 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 Philip, Thank you for this, we have noted your apology for this meeting. Kind regards, Michelle From: <gnso-rpm-data-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-data-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>> Date: Thursday, October 19, 2017 at 6:49 PM To: Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>>, "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 I have a preexisting commitment that makes it impossible for me to join this call. Have a good and productive meeting. For those who are heading to ICANN 60, see you there and safe travel. Best, Philip Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/Cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: gnso-rpm-data-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-data-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rpm-data-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mary Wong Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2017 2:23 PM To: gnso-rpm-data@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-data@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-rpm-data] Proposed agenda and updated tables for the RPM Data Sub Team call this Friday Dear RPM Data Sub Team members, Please find attached the updated tables from the Working Group's data request that was approved by the GNSO Council. As requested, we have done the following: ? Broken up the original table into two tables - Table 1 for all the survey work; Table 2 for the other work to be undertaken by staff and others (e.g. researchers, contractors); ? Added a third column to Table 1 to include the specific Charter question(s) to which that specific data request is directed; ? Added a fourth column to Table 1 for Sub Team draft questions, notes and other guidance to be provided to the professional survey designer; and ? Provided staff updates to all the research tasks listed in Table 2. While the resulting document is fairly long, you will see that this is because of pasting the relevant Charter questions, some of which are quite lengthy. We have not changed any of the content from the tables that were part of the Council-approved request. For an agenda for this Friday's call at 1600 UTC, staff would like to propose the following: 1. Roll call 2. Select/elect Sub Team chair(s) 3. Review staff update on Table 2, for timing and to provide any needed specific guidance to staff 4. Discuss updated Table 1, including assigning volunteers to each set of questions for the target groups 5. Planning for ICANN60 - agenda for Sub Team session Thanks and cheers Mary
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
On Oct 19, 2017, at 11:23 AM, Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org> wrote:
Dear RPM Data Sub Team members,
Please find attached the updated tables from the Working Group’s data request that was approved by the GNSO Council. As requested, we have done the following: Broken up the original table into two tables – Table 1 for all the survey work; Table 2 for the other work to be undertaken by staff and others (e.g. researchers, contractors); Added a third column to Table 1 to include the specific Charter question(s) to which that specific data request is directed; Added a fourth column to Table 1 for Sub Team draft questions, notes and other guidance to be provided to the professional survey designer; and Provided staff updates to all the research tasks listed in Table 2.
While the resulting document is fairly long, you will see that this is because of pasting the relevant Charter questions, some of which are quite lengthy. We have not changed any of the content from the tables that were part of the Council-approved request.
For an agenda for this Friday’s call at 1600 UTC, staff would like to propose the following:
Roll call Select/elect Sub Team chair(s) Review staff update on Table 2, for timing and to provide any needed specific guidance to staff Discuss updated Table 1, including assigning volunteers to each set of questions for the target groups Planning for ICANN60 – agenda for Sub Team session
Thanks and cheers Mary <Data Request Table - Sub Team Use - 18 Oct 2017.docx>_______________________________________________ Gnso-rpm-data mailing list Gnso-rpm-data@icann.org <mailto:Gnso-rpm-data@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-data <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-data>
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... (using ‘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> on behalf of Kurt Pritz <kurt@kjpritz.com> Date: Monday, October 23, 2017 at 1:16 PM To: Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org> Cc: "gnso-rpm-data@icann.org" <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
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> 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... (using ‘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 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> on behalf of Kurt Pritz <kurt@kjpritz.com> Date: Monday, October 23, 2017 at 1:16 PM To: Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org> Cc: "gnso-rpm-data@icann.org" <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
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 <gnso-rpm-data-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Kurt Pritz <kurt@kjpritz.com> Sent: Monday, October 23, 2017 5:26:58 PM To: Ariel Liang Cc: 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... (using ‘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
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> 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 <gnso-rpm-data-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Kurt Pritz <kurt@kjpritz.com> Sent: Monday, October 23, 2017 5:26:58 PM To: Ariel Liang Cc: 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... <https://docs.google.com/a/icann.org/document/d/10qENwqvozS-TZfJiVOx5MG71YIsqeX95WkPqhA64ayE/edit?usp=sharing>(using ‘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
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
Hello everyone, and thanks to Kurt and Rebecca for starting this discussion, which staff believes is what the GNSO Council had in mind when requesting that the Working Group consider how to “structure the data request in such a way that the value and relevance of the data is maximized”. If it will help, here is the text of the relevant Charter questions for the survey of potential registrants, as developed by the Trademark Claims Sub Team and approved by the full Working Group; we have highlighted what seems to us to be the most significant part of each question: Q1(b) Is the Trademark Claims service having any unintended consequences, such as deterring good-faith domain name applications? Q3(a) Does the Trademark Claims Notice to domain name applicants meet its intended purpose? i. If not, is it intimidating, hard to understand, or otherwise inadequate? · If inadequate, how can it be improved? ii. Does it inform domain name applicants of the scope and limitations of trademark holders’ rights? · If not, how can it be improved? iii. Are translations of the Trademark Claims Notice effective in informing domain name applicants of the scope and limitation of trademark holders’ rights? With respect to other points raised by Kurt and/or Rebecca: * The Trademark Claims Sub Team’s language for surveying potential registrants was: “Consumer survey evidence, perhaps via Amazon Turk or online survey group, using existing Claims Notice and perhaps other alternatives to test comprehension of the Claims Notice among individuals likely to consider registering a domain name.” * From the Trademark Claims Sub Team’s discussion, it appears that the idea is to present the Claims Notice to a sample of potential registrants in each of the five global regions, in the primary language (other than English) of that sampled region/potential registrant. Finally, please permit staff to note again that a full global survey of an undefined number (versus a targeted group or sampling) is far beyond the scope of the budget we will have available. For illustrative purposes, we note that the CCT Review Team’s survey of global Internet users cost over US$200,000 and that Sub Team members like Lori and Michael have also noted the expense involved in these endeavors. We hope the above-noted information is helpful. Cheers Mary From: <gnso-rpm-data-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of "Tushnet, Rebecca" <rtushnet@law.harvard.edu> Date: Tuesday, October 24, 2017 at 09:10 To: Kurt Pritz <kurt@kjpritz.com> Cc: "gnso-rpm-data@icann.org" <gnso-rpm-data@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-rpm-data] Proposed agenda and updated tables for the RPM Data Sub Team call this Friday 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-TZfJiVOx5MG71YIsqeX95WkPqhA64ayE/edit?usp=sharing[docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_a_icann.org_document_d_10qENwqvozS-2DTZfJiVOx5MG71YIsqeX95WkPqhA64ayE_edit-3Fusp-3Dsharing&d=DwMF-g&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=6KvgpChMgmpPcSR3kIL3FOUd46WFAVAztF2ecOTVl7w&s=530Ps78ZWyy9C6b7YSCGYrDIMEGUeC5GCNHFtzb9O3Y&e=>(using ‘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[community.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_o...> 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
I attach a draft of questions or areas of inquiry for Trademark and Brand owners. I have marked my changes and additions in the attached in red. Mary: Please take my changes from this and incorporate in the Wiki draft for review at ICANN 60. Michael R. From: gnso-rpm-data-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-data-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mary Wong Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2017 7:12 AM To: Tushnet, Rebecca <rtushnet@law.harvard.edu>; Kurt Pritz <kurt@kjpritz.com> Cc: gnso-rpm-data@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-rpm-data] Proposed agenda and updated tables for the RPM Data Sub Team call this Friday Hello everyone, and thanks to Kurt and Rebecca for starting this discussion, which staff believes is what the GNSO Council had in mind when requesting that the Working Group consider how to “structure the data request in such a way that the value and relevance of the data is maximized”. If it will help, here is the text of the relevant Charter questions for the survey of potential registrants, as developed by the Trademark Claims Sub Team and approved by the full Working Group; we have highlighted what seems to us to be the most significant part of each question: Q1(b) Is the Trademark Claims service having any unintended consequences, such as deterring good-faith domain name applications? Q3(a) Does the Trademark Claims Notice to domain name applicants meet its intended purpose? i. If not, is it intimidating, hard to understand, or otherwise inadequate? · If inadequate, how can it be improved? ii. Does it inform domain name applicants of the scope and limitations of trademark holders’ rights? · If not, how can it be improved? iii. Are translations of the Trademark Claims Notice effective in informing domain name applicants of the scope and limitation of trademark holders’ rights? With respect to other points raised by Kurt and/or Rebecca: · The Trademark Claims Sub Team’s language for surveying potential registrants was: “Consumer survey evidence, perhaps via Amazon Turk or online survey group, using existing Claims Notice and perhaps other alternatives to test comprehension of the Claims Notice among individuals likely to consider registering a domain name.” · From the Trademark Claims Sub Team’s discussion, it appears that the idea is to present the Claims Notice to a sample of potential registrants in each of the five global regions, in the primary language (other than English) of that sampled region/potential registrant. Finally, please permit staff to note again that a full global survey of an undefined number (versus a targeted group or sampling) is far beyond the scope of the budget we will have available. For illustrative purposes, we note that the CCT Review Team’s survey of global Internet users cost over US$200,000 and that Sub Team members like Lori and Michael have also noted the expense involved in these endeavors. We hope the above-noted information is helpful. Cheers Mary From: <gnso-rpm-data-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-data-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of "Tushnet, Rebecca" <rtushnet@law.harvard.edu<mailto:rtushnet@law.harvard.edu>> Date: Tuesday, October 24, 2017 at 09:10 To: Kurt Pritz <kurt@kjpritz.com<mailto:kurt@kjpritz.com>> 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 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<mailto:kurt@kjpritz.com>> Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2017 9:04:01 AM To: Tushnet, Rebecca Cc: Ariel Liang; 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 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-TZfJiVOx5MG71YIsqeX95WkPqhA64ayE/edit?usp=sharing[docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_a_icann.org_document_d_10qENwqvozS-2DTZfJiVOx5MG71YIsqeX95WkPqhA64ayE_edit-3Fusp-3Dsharing&d=DwMF-g&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=6KvgpChMgmpPcSR3kIL3FOUd46WFAVAztF2ecOTVl7w&s=530Ps78ZWyy9C6b7YSCGYrDIMEGUeC5GCNHFtzb9O3Y&e=>(using ‘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[community.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_o...> 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
I have added in suggestions for the registrar section Susan Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy | Valideus Ltd 28-30 Little Russell Street London, WC1A 2HN, United Kingdom E: susan.payne@valideus.com<mailto:susan.payne@valideus.com> D: +44 20 7421 8255 T: +44 20 7421 8299 M: +44 7971 661175 From: gnso-rpm-data-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-data-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Ariel Liang Sent: 23 October 2017 23:40 To: Kurt Pritz <kurt@kjpritz.com>; Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org> Cc: gnso-rpm-data@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-rpm-data] Proposed agenda and updated tables for the RPM Data Sub Team call this Friday 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... (using ‘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
participants (9)
-
Ariel Liang -
Dorrain, Kristine -
Kurt Pritz -
Mary Wong -
Michael Graham (ELCA) -
Michelle DeSmyter -
Phil Corwin -
Susan Payne -
Tushnet, Rebecca