Re: [Gnso-rpm-data] Rationales for/against use of hypotheticals
Hello Kristine, Thank you and Rebecca for submitting the text! If no objection from the Sub Team, I will append this text on the Data Table (on a separate page, right after the suggested hypothetical question), and circulate the updated Data Table with the full WG. The interactive phase in the RFP was closed yesterday (ideally we should seize all communications with the vendor until 9 March), but I will ask Procurement whether they could forward this comment individually to the vendors. All – if you have any comment/objection to this text, please be so kind to share with the group, so that we could forward the agreed text to the vendors asap. Thank you, Ariel From: Gnso-rpm-data <gnso-rpm-data-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of "Dorrain, Kristine via Gnso-rpm-data" <gnso-rpm-data@icann.org> Reply-To: "Dorrain, Kristine" <dorraink@amazon.com> Date: Tuesday, February 27, 2018 at 5:41 PM To: "gnso-rpm-data@icann.org" <gnso-rpm-data@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-rpm-data] Rationales for/against use of hypotheticals Hi team, Rebecca (timely) submitted her text and I have (belatedly) attached mine (thanks for your valuable contributions, Susan). Please see the language below. If the group does not object, I will ask staff to append this to the email with the data table that was circulated to the broader group. Julie/Ariel, I’m not sure what the best method is for making sure everyone has had a chance to see this. Best, Kristine ******************** To the RPMs WG: Our subteam largely achieved consensus on the data questions as submitted to you. Our primary disagreement was in determining if we should include hypotheticals in the survey in the “questions for potential registrants” section. The full WG will need to determine whether to include hypothetical questions in the data survey. We have prepared two rationales: one in support of hypotheticals, and one opposed; both are provided below. We hope you will consider our viewpoints when deciding. Thanks, RPMs Data Subteam ************************* Rationale SUPPORTING use of hypotheticals: Although asking respondents to interpret the notice in the abstract will provide some information about how they understand it, they will still be answering an abstract question. When we ask what they would do in the abstract if they received such a notice when they were trying to register a domain name, we don’t know what kind of domain name they imagine themselves trying to register. To deal with that variance, concrete scenarios can provide additional information. In particular, a key question we want answers to is whether the current notice produces overdeterrence. Would a person who should win a URS/UDRP if one were actually brought understand that they have the right to proceed with a registration? Secondarily: would a person who should lose understand that a rights holder is going to be notified? We don’t need to ask about tough cases to get better information about that; we can ask about clear cases, including providing information about the intended use as well as the domain name, e.g., assuming there’s a famous brand of Horse Computers, horse.farm for a farm offering horse rides and horse.computers for offering a competing computer brand. (Such questions should rotate among respondents and otherwise follow survey best practices to avoid leading questions.) Rationale OPPOSING use of hypotheticals: Hypotheticals require the WG to make too many assumptions. Let’s take the example of apple.farm and apple.computer (for illustrative purposes only). We cannot assume that the registrant of apple.farm is not intending to register and use the domain name in bad faith, just like we cannot assume the registrant of apple.computer is intending to register and use the domain name in bad faith. If we say “when presented by this notice [display notice], would you feel confident registering a) apple.farm , b) apple.computer, c) both, d) neither?” we learn nothing. Because our interpretation of what this means relies our own qualitative opinion that the survey taker is not privy to. The notice should deter someone with bad faith intent; but we cannot know or determine any survey taker’s actual intent from their response to this type of question. On the other hand, we can get information about what they’re thinking by asking the following user stories that go to state of mind: “If you were presented with this notice [display notice] when registering a domain name, would you a) proceed to register, b) stop trying to register the name, c) stop for now and maybe come back after you’ve done some research, or d) other [explain]?” What if you were: 1. Getting a domain name for a business you’d already started? [Proceed/stop/research/other] 1. Where that business is in the same field of activity as the brand that was the subject of the notice [because even if you plan to run a business it doesn’t assume that you’ve chosen an appropriate name] 2. Where that business is in an unrelated field 1. Getting a domain name for a business you were thinking about starting? [Proceed/stop/research/other] * Where that business will be in the same field of activity as the brand that was the subject of the notice * Where that business will be in an unrelated field 1. Getting a domain name for fun (family use, email address, vanity) [Proceed/stop/research/other] 2. Getting a domain name as an investment (to maybe sell or use later)? [Proceed/stop/research/other] What concerns do you have about your next steps? [free form space]
Dear Data Sub Team, Not hearing objections or further comments, I have forwarded the updated Data Table with the additional notes to the full WG, as well as the Procurement Team to post in the RFP platform. Procurement Team advised that we do not make further changes to the Data Table, as the responding vendors only have ten calendar days left to finalize their proposals. Thank you for your understanding and help! Best Regards, Ariel From: Gnso-rpm-data <gnso-rpm-data-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Ariel Liang <ariel.liang@icann.org> Date: Tuesday, February 27, 2018 at 6:19 PM To: "Dorrain, Kristine" <dorraink@amazon.com>, "gnso-rpm-data@icann.org" <gnso-rpm-data@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-rpm-data] Rationales for/against use of hypotheticals Hello Kristine, Thank you and Rebecca for submitting the text! If no objection from the Sub Team, I will append this text on the Data Table (on a separate page, right after the suggested hypothetical question), and circulate the updated Data Table with the full WG. The interactive phase in the RFP was closed yesterday (ideally we should seize all communications with the vendor until 9 March), but I will ask Procurement whether they could forward this comment individually to the vendors. All – if you have any comment/objection to this text, please be so kind to share with the group, so that we could forward the agreed text to the vendors asap. Thank you, Ariel From: Gnso-rpm-data <gnso-rpm-data-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of "Dorrain, Kristine via Gnso-rpm-data" <gnso-rpm-data@icann.org> Reply-To: "Dorrain, Kristine" <dorraink@amazon.com> Date: Tuesday, February 27, 2018 at 5:41 PM To: "gnso-rpm-data@icann.org" <gnso-rpm-data@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-rpm-data] Rationales for/against use of hypotheticals Hi team, Rebecca (timely) submitted her text and I have (belatedly) attached mine (thanks for your valuable contributions, Susan). Please see the language below. If the group does not object, I will ask staff to append this to the email with the data table that was circulated to the broader group. Julie/Ariel, I’m not sure what the best method is for making sure everyone has had a chance to see this. Best, Kristine ******************** To the RPMs WG: Our subteam largely achieved consensus on the data questions as submitted to you. Our primary disagreement was in determining if we should include hypotheticals in the survey in the “questions for potential registrants” section. The full WG will need to determine whether to include hypothetical questions in the data survey. We have prepared two rationales: one in support of hypotheticals, and one opposed; both are provided below. We hope you will consider our viewpoints when deciding. Thanks, RPMs Data Subteam ************************* Rationale SUPPORTING use of hypotheticals: Although asking respondents to interpret the notice in the abstract will provide some information about how they understand it, they will still be answering an abstract question. When we ask what they would do in the abstract if they received such a notice when they were trying to register a domain name, we don’t know what kind of domain name they imagine themselves trying to register. To deal with that variance, concrete scenarios can provide additional information. In particular, a key question we want answers to is whether the current notice produces overdeterrence. Would a person who should win a URS/UDRP if one were actually brought understand that they have the right to proceed with a registration? Secondarily: would a person who should lose understand that a rights holder is going to be notified? We don’t need to ask about tough cases to get better information about that; we can ask about clear cases, including providing information about the intended use as well as the domain name, e.g., assuming there’s a famous brand of Horse Computers, horse.farm for a farm offering horse rides and horse.computers for offering a competing computer brand. (Such questions should rotate among respondents and otherwise follow survey best practices to avoid leading questions.) Rationale OPPOSING use of hypotheticals: Hypotheticals require the WG to make too many assumptions. Let’s take the example of apple.farm and apple.computer (for illustrative purposes only). We cannot assume that the registrant of apple.farm is not intending to register and use the domain name in bad faith, just like we cannot assume the registrant of apple.computer is intending to register and use the domain name in bad faith. If we say “when presented by this notice [display notice], would you feel confident registering a) apple.farm , b) apple.computer, c) both, d) neither?” we learn nothing. Because our interpretation of what this means relies our own qualitative opinion that the survey taker is not privy to. The notice should deter someone with bad faith intent; but we cannot know or determine any survey taker’s actual intent from their response to this type of question. On the other hand, we can get information about what they’re thinking by asking the following user stories that go to state of mind: “If you were presented with this notice [display notice] when registering a domain name, would you a) proceed to register, b) stop trying to register the name, c) stop for now and maybe come back after you’ve done some research, or d) other [explain]?” What if you were: 1. Getting a domain name for a business you’d already started? [Proceed/stop/research/other] 1. Where that business is in the same field of activity as the brand that was the subject of the notice [because even if you plan to run a business it doesn’t assume that you’ve chosen an appropriate name] 2. Where that business is in an unrelated field 1. Getting a domain name for a business you were thinking about starting? [Proceed/stop/research/other] * Where that business will be in the same field of activity as the brand that was the subject of the notice * Where that business will be in an unrelated field 1. Getting a domain name for fun (family use, email address, vanity) [Proceed/stop/research/other] 2. Getting a domain name as an investment (to maybe sell or use later)? [Proceed/stop/research/other] What concerns do you have about your next steps? [free form space]
participants (1)
-
Ariel Liang