Re: [Gnso-rpm-data] [Ext] RE: TM Owner Survey - Beta Testers' Feedback - Review by COB Tue, 28 August
Dear Susan and all, Thank you, Susan, for going through the testers’ feedback in detail and reporting the two additional issues. We will wait a bit for Michael’s feedback before passing the Sub Team’s input to Analysis Group. Staff also corrected the screengrab for Q2 (please find attached). Thanks for pointing it out, Susan! Best Regards, Mary, Julie, Ariel & Berry From: Susan Payne <susan.payne@valideus.com> Date: Tuesday, August 28, 2018 at 8:13 AM To: Ariel Liang <ariel.liang@icann.org>, "gnso-rpm-data@icann.org" <gnso-rpm-data@icann.org> Subject: [Ext] RE: TM Owner Survey - Beta Testers' Feedback - Review by COB Tue, 28 August Hi all, although will defer to Michael on this, for what it’s worth I have reviewed the feedback and made some comments inline. I also have a couple of comments of my own that I noticed as I was using the test link. In the introductory questions, the question: “Approximately how many of your company’s trademarks have been recorded with the TMCH?”, if the respondent selects “don’t know/not sure” they get the message that since they haven’t recorded any marks in the TMCH the survey terminates – and I then couldn’t go back to change my answer. Is that what we intend? It seems like someone might not be the person in the company who handled the TMCH recordal and might not want to guess how many marks they recorded, but still could have useful insight on some of the later questions because they have been the one making decisions about registering domains. On the question “How did price affect your company’s decision to seek Sunrise Period registrations?” I thought we were making a change so that it’s clear if we are asking about higher or lower price throughout. Otherwise theoretically a respondent could have in mind that the lower the price the more likely they are to register and tick option 2, whereas someone else could be thinking about higher price and tick option 4 – when we get the results we won’t know what they were thinking. Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy | Valideus Ltd 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 [mailto:gnso-rpm-data-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Ariel Liang Sent: 27 August 2018 23:45 To: gnso-rpm-data@icann.org Subject: [Gnso-rpm-data] TM Owner Survey - Beta Testers' Feedback - Review by COB Tue, 28 August Dear Michael and all, Beta testers have reviewed the TM Owner survey and provided feedback. Test link: http://ICANNTrademarkHolders.cloudssi.com/login.html [icanntrademarkholders.cloudssi.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__icanntrademarkholders.cl...>. Please see below a summary of feedback/suggestion from the beta testers (technical issues reported by the testers have been forwarded to Analysis Group directly). Staff took screenshots of the questions that testers had feedback and created numbering for ease of reference. By COB Tuesday, 28 August, please be so kind to let us your input. Analysis Group will implement the changes accordingly. Thank you for your time and help! Best Regards, Mary, Julie, Ariel, and Berry === General Comment: * Do a global change of replacing “company” with “company/organization” in all survey questions and answer options in order to cover the non-profit, non-commercial entities [SP – sounds fine to me and reflects changes made in other surveys] Q1: Is your company a for-profit enterprise or not-for-profit? * Ask respondents to explain the nature of their company/organization’s entity. Respondents in developing countries may not know the binary. [SP – I honestly don’t think this is a big issue. I don’t think we intend this question to use these terms as they exist in US company law. Even if you are a non-US entity I think you can work out whether you’re a commercial organization or one where profit is not the primary driver. There’s also a “don’t know” option and “prefer not to respond”] Q2: Approximately How many domain names matching any of your company’s trademarks have you applied to register during any new generic top-level domain (gTLD) Sunrise Period? * Why respondents are giving the option of saying “not sure/don’t know”? [SP – the screen grab Q2 seems to be for a different question. If they tick “not sure/don’t know” does the survey terminate? I don’t think it should since there are still Claims questions. But in any event I think respondents should be encouraged to give an approximate in all of the questions where they are asked about volume – we don’t want the questioning to terminate because someone cannot remember the precise number.] Q3: Has your company registered a domain name matching any of your company's trademarks in a new generic top-level domain (new gTLD)? * Provide examples of new gTLDs. Consider adding the pop-up message that includes the list of new gTLDs strings used in the registrant survey. [SP – seems a sensible change based on what we did for registrants. But this question is called “Sunrise Participation” and yet the question does not actually refer to registration during sunrise. Assume that is deliberate (ie because we want brand owner registrants to answer even if they registered their names after the sunrise, so that we can get their reasoning behind that decision)] Q4: In what new generic top-level domains (gTLDs), if any, did your company decide not to seek a Sunrise Period registration due to price? * Why the difference between “decide to seek” versus “decide not to seek”? For confidentiality reasons? [SP – see my comment above about price above. Regarding the comment from the tester, this is because we’re interested in knowing where price was a discouragement rather than the reverse.] Q5: Should Registry Operators be required to publicly publish their reserved names lists? * This question can be included in the registrant survey, if not too late for implementation. Q6: In the event a Registry has placed terms on its reserved names list and later decides to release them for registration, should the Registry be required to provide notice of the release to Trademark Owners who have recorded trademarks in the Trademark Clearinghouse (TMCH)? * Replace “terms” with “strings”? [SP – I don’t feel too strongly, but think that “terms” is a more generally-understood term, strings is more of an industry-specific term which a respondent might not be familiar with.] * Add “all” before “Trademark Owners” to better differentiate this question to the one after the next (see Q7) [SP – I don’t feel strongly] Q7: In the event a Registry has placed terms on its reserved names list and later decides to release them for registration, should the Registry be required to provide the owner of the released trademark that matches the domain name and is recorded in the TMCH with a priority opportunity to register the domain name upon its release? * Replace “terms” with “strings”? [SP – same comment as above] Q8: What was the outcome of your company’s actions? Please note that you may select multiple options. * Qualify “Complaint” in the answer option no.3? I.e., what Complaint and to whom it was made? [SP – I think this is fine. This refers back to the previous Q where UDRP and URS Complaints were an option] Q9: Has your company ever brought a Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy (UDRP), Uniform Rapid Suspension System (URS), or litigation proceeding against a domain name registered in a new generic top-level domain (gTLD)? If yes, approximately how many? * Replace “against” with “in respect of” – you bring a proceeding against someone, in respect of something. [SP – agree] * Add links to URS and UDRP pages on icann.org: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/urs-2014-01-09-en [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_resources...>, https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/help/dndr/udrp-en [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_resources...> [SP – fine] Q10: In approximately how many of the UDRP, URS, or litigation cases that you brought against a domain name in a new gTLD was the domain name at issue an exact match of your company’s trademark as recorded in the Trademark Clearinghouse? If you are uncertain of the number, you may skip this question. * Replace “against” with “in respect of” – you bring a proceeding against someone, in respect of something. [SP – agree] Q11: In approximately how many of the UDRP, URS, or litigation cases that you brought against a domain name in a new gTLD was the domain name at issue a “creative misspelling” of your company’s trademark? If you are uncertain of the number, you may skip this question. * Replace “against” with “in respect of” – you bring a proceeding against someone, in respect of something. [SP – agree] Q12: In approximately how many of the UDRP, URS, or litigation cases that you brought against a domain name in a new gTLD was the domain name at issue a combination of an exact match of your company’s trademark as recorded in the Trademark Clearinghouse and some other terms or characters? If you are uncertain of the number, you may skip this question. * Replace “against” with “in respect of” – you bring a proceeding against someone, in respect of something. [SP – agree] Q13: Approximately how many of the UDRP, URS, or litigation cases that you brought against a domain name in a new gTLD were filed for other reasons? If you are uncertain of the number, you may skip this question. * Replace “against” with “in respect of” – you bring a proceeding against someone, in respect of something. [SP – agree] Q14: Please indicate for what other reason(s) your company filed a Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy (UDRP), Uniform Rapid Suspension System (URS), or litigation proceeding against domain name applications. If you prefer to not respond, you may skip this question. * Replace “against” with “in respect of” – you bring a proceeding against someone, in respect of something. [SP – agree] Q15: In how many of these cases were you successful? If you are uncertain of the number, you may skip this question. * Add a “N/A” or “Don’t know/not sure” option? If so, this option should apply to other similar questions. [SP – isn’t skipping it sufficient?] Q16: In what new generic top-level domains (gTLDs), if any, did your company decide to seek a Sunrise Period registration? If you prefer to not respond, you may skip this question. * Add “(not legacy TLDs such as .com, .org, .net, or country code top level domains such as .us, .eu, .cn)” after “In what new generic top-level domains (gTLDs)” [SP – haven’t we already told them what a new gTLD is – in the same way that was done for the registrant survey? If so, we should and then this clarification is not necessary] Q17: Why did your company miss the registration window end date? Please select all that apply. * Add the following answer option “the process of the registration was too long and we missed the window because of it” [SP – this seems like a particular experience someone had, but I can’t believe it was a regular occurrence since most registrations are practically instantaneous. I think the “other” option is sufficient] Q18: Would a 60-day Sunrise Period be preferable to a 30-day period? * Question is confusing. Start date sunrise is shorter (30 days), but it has first come first served rule, and end-date is longer (60 days), but the terms are different (highest bidder etc.) [SP – this feels like déjà vu. I’ve been saying throughout this process that the start date and end date sunrises are different and the surveys keep conflating them. I think we can still get feedback on whether 60 days is viewed as better than 30 days, but it does not take into account that the amount of notice you get is different and that that the time at which names are allocated is also different]
Apologies – I’ve been out of the office and off email. I will take a look at this and get back. Michael R. From: Gnso-rpm-data [mailto:gnso-rpm-data-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Ariel Liang Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2018 9:13 AM To: Susan Payne <susan.payne@valideus.com>; gnso-rpm-data@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-rpm-data] [Ext] RE: TM Owner Survey - Beta Testers' Feedback - Review by COB Tue, 28 August Dear Susan and all, Thank you, Susan, for going through the testers’ feedback in detail and reporting the two additional issues. We will wait a bit for Michael’s feedback before passing the Sub Team’s input to Analysis Group. Staff also corrected the screengrab for Q2 (please find attached). Thanks for pointing it out, Susan! Best Regards, Mary, Julie, Ariel & Berry From: Susan Payne <susan.payne@valideus.com<mailto:susan.payne@valideus.com>> Date: Tuesday, August 28, 2018 at 8:13 AM To: Ariel Liang <ariel.liang@icann.org<mailto:ariel.liang@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: [Ext] RE: TM Owner Survey - Beta Testers' Feedback - Review by COB Tue, 28 August Hi all, although will defer to Michael on this, for what it’s worth I have reviewed the feedback and made some comments inline. I also have a couple of comments of my own that I noticed as I was using the test link. In the introductory questions, the question: “Approximately how many of your company’s trademarks have been recorded with the TMCH?”, if the respondent selects “don’t know/not sure” they get the message that since they haven’t recorded any marks in the TMCH the survey terminates – and I then couldn’t go back to change my answer. Is that what we intend? It seems like someone might not be the person in the company who handled the TMCH recordal and might not want to guess how many marks they recorded, but still could have useful insight on some of the later questions because they have been the one making decisions about registering domains. On the question “How did price affect your company’s decision to seek Sunrise Period registrations?” I thought we were making a change so that it’s clear if we are asking about higher or lower price throughout. Otherwise theoretically a respondent could have in mind that the lower the price the more likely they are to register and tick option 2, whereas someone else could be thinking about higher price and tick option 4 – when we get the results we won’t know what they were thinking. Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy | Valideus Ltd 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 [mailto:gnso-rpm-data-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Ariel Liang Sent: 27 August 2018 23:45 To: gnso-rpm-data@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-data@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-rpm-data] TM Owner Survey - Beta Testers' Feedback - Review by COB Tue, 28 August Dear Michael and all, Beta testers have reviewed the TM Owner survey and provided feedback. Test link: http://ICANNTrademarkHolders.cloudssi.com/login.html [icanntrademarkholders.cloudssi.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__icanntrademarkholders.cl...>. Please see below a summary of feedback/suggestion from the beta testers (technical issues reported by the testers have been forwarded to Analysis Group directly). Staff took screenshots of the questions that testers had feedback and created numbering for ease of reference. By COB Tuesday, 28 August, please be so kind to let us your input. Analysis Group will implement the changes accordingly. Thank you for your time and help! Best Regards, Mary, Julie, Ariel, and Berry === General Comment: * Do a global change of replacing “company” with “company/organization” in all survey questions and answer options in order to cover the non-profit, non-commercial entities [SP – sounds fine to me and reflects changes made in other surveys] Q1: Is your company a for-profit enterprise or not-for-profit? * Ask respondents to explain the nature of their company/organization’s entity. Respondents in developing countries may not know the binary. [SP – I honestly don’t think this is a big issue. I don’t think we intend this question to use these terms as they exist in US company law. Even if you are a non-US entity I think you can work out whether you’re a commercial organization or one where profit is not the primary driver. There’s also a “don’t know” option and “prefer not to respond”] Q2: Approximately How many domain names matching any of your company’s trademarks have you applied to register during any new generic top-level domain (gTLD) Sunrise Period? * Why respondents are giving the option of saying “not sure/don’t know”? [SP – the screen grab Q2 seems to be for a different question. If they tick “not sure/don’t know” does the survey terminate? I don’t think it should since there are still Claims questions. But in any event I think respondents should be encouraged to give an approximate in all of the questions where they are asked about volume – we don’t want the questioning to terminate because someone cannot remember the precise number.] Q3: Has your company registered a domain name matching any of your company's trademarks in a new generic top-level domain (new gTLD)? * Provide examples of new gTLDs. Consider adding the pop-up message that includes the list of new gTLDs strings used in the registrant survey. [SP – seems a sensible change based on what we did for registrants. But this question is called “Sunrise Participation” and yet the question does not actually refer to registration during sunrise. Assume that is deliberate (ie because we want brand owner registrants to answer even if they registered their names after the sunrise, so that we can get their reasoning behind that decision)] Q4: In what new generic top-level domains (gTLDs), if any, did your company decide not to seek a Sunrise Period registration due to price? * Why the difference between “decide to seek” versus “decide not to seek”? For confidentiality reasons? [SP – see my comment above about price above. Regarding the comment from the tester, this is because we’re interested in knowing where price was a discouragement rather than the reverse.] Q5: Should Registry Operators be required to publicly publish their reserved names lists? * This question can be included in the registrant survey, if not too late for implementation. Q6: In the event a Registry has placed terms on its reserved names list and later decides to release them for registration, should the Registry be required to provide notice of the release to Trademark Owners who have recorded trademarks in the Trademark Clearinghouse (TMCH)? * Replace “terms” with “strings”? [SP – I don’t feel too strongly, but think that “terms” is a more generally-understood term, strings is more of an industry-specific term which a respondent might not be familiar with.] * Add “all” before “Trademark Owners” to better differentiate this question to the one after the next (see Q7) [SP – I don’t feel strongly] Q7: In the event a Registry has placed terms on its reserved names list and later decides to release them for registration, should the Registry be required to provide the owner of the released trademark that matches the domain name and is recorded in the TMCH with a priority opportunity to register the domain name upon its release? * Replace “terms” with “strings”? [SP – same comment as above] Q8: What was the outcome of your company’s actions? Please note that you may select multiple options. * Qualify “Complaint” in the answer option no.3? I.e., what Complaint and to whom it was made? [SP – I think this is fine. This refers back to the previous Q where UDRP and URS Complaints were an option] Q9: Has your company ever brought a Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy (UDRP), Uniform Rapid Suspension System (URS), or litigation proceeding against a domain name registered in a new generic top-level domain (gTLD)? If yes, approximately how many? * Replace “against” with “in respect of” – you bring a proceeding against someone, in respect of something. [SP – agree] * Add links to URS and UDRP pages on icann.org: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/urs-2014-01-09-en [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_resources...>, https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/help/dndr/udrp-en [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_resources...> [SP – fine] Q10: In approximately how many of the UDRP, URS, or litigation cases that you brought against a domain name in a new gTLD was the domain name at issue an exact match of your company’s trademark as recorded in the Trademark Clearinghouse? If you are uncertain of the number, you may skip this question. * Replace “against” with “in respect of” – you bring a proceeding against someone, in respect of something. [SP – agree] Q11: In approximately how many of the UDRP, URS, or litigation cases that you brought against a domain name in a new gTLD was the domain name at issue a “creative misspelling” of your company’s trademark? If you are uncertain of the number, you may skip this question. * Replace “against” with “in respect of” – you bring a proceeding against someone, in respect of something. [SP – agree] Q12: In approximately how many of the UDRP, URS, or litigation cases that you brought against a domain name in a new gTLD was the domain name at issue a combination of an exact match of your company’s trademark as recorded in the Trademark Clearinghouse and some other terms or characters? If you are uncertain of the number, you may skip this question. * Replace “against” with “in respect of” – you bring a proceeding against someone, in respect of something. [SP – agree] Q13: Approximately how many of the UDRP, URS, or litigation cases that you brought against a domain name in a new gTLD were filed for other reasons? If you are uncertain of the number, you may skip this question. * Replace “against” with “in respect of” – you bring a proceeding against someone, in respect of something. [SP – agree] Q14: Please indicate for what other reason(s) your company filed a Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy (UDRP), Uniform Rapid Suspension System (URS), or litigation proceeding against domain name applications. If you prefer to not respond, you may skip this question. * Replace “against” with “in respect of” – you bring a proceeding against someone, in respect of something. [SP – agree] Q15: In how many of these cases were you successful? If you are uncertain of the number, you may skip this question. * Add a “N/A” or “Don’t know/not sure” option? If so, this option should apply to other similar questions. [SP – isn’t skipping it sufficient?] Q16: In what new generic top-level domains (gTLDs), if any, did your company decide to seek a Sunrise Period registration? If you prefer to not respond, you may skip this question. * Add “(not legacy TLDs such as .com, .org, .net, or country code top level domains such as .us, .eu, .cn)” after “In what new generic top-level domains (gTLDs)” [SP – haven’t we already told them what a new gTLD is – in the same way that was done for the registrant survey? If so, we should and then this clarification is not necessary] Q17: Why did your company miss the registration window end date? Please select all that apply. * Add the following answer option “the process of the registration was too long and we missed the window because of it” [SP – this seems like a particular experience someone had, but I can’t believe it was a regular occurrence since most registrations are practically instantaneous. I think the “other” option is sufficient] Q18: Would a 60-day Sunrise Period be preferable to a 30-day period? * Question is confusing. Start date sunrise is shorter (30 days), but it has first come first served rule, and end-date is longer (60 days), but the terms are different (highest bidder etc.) [SP – this feels like déjà vu. I’ve been saying throughout this process that the start date and end date sunrises are different and the surveys keep conflating them. I think we can still get feedback on whether 60 days is viewed as better than 30 days, but it does not take into account that the amount of notice you get is different and that that the time at which names are allocated is also different]
Hello Michael, Thank you very much for checking on this while you are out of the office. We appreciate your time and review! Best Regards, Mary, Julie, Ariel & Berry From: "Michael Graham (ELCA)" <migraham@expedia.com> Date: Tuesday, August 28, 2018 at 12:21 PM To: Ariel Liang <ariel.liang@icann.org>, Susan Payne <susan.payne@valideus.com>, "gnso-rpm-data@icann.org" <gnso-rpm-data@icann.org> Subject: RE: [Ext] RE: TM Owner Survey - Beta Testers' Feedback - Review by COB Tue, 28 August Apologies – I’ve been out of the office and off email. I will take a look at this and get back. Michael R. From: Gnso-rpm-data [mailto:gnso-rpm-data-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Ariel Liang Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2018 9:13 AM To: Susan Payne <susan.payne@valideus.com>; gnso-rpm-data@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-rpm-data] [Ext] RE: TM Owner Survey - Beta Testers' Feedback - Review by COB Tue, 28 August Dear Susan and all, Thank you, Susan, for going through the testers’ feedback in detail and reporting the two additional issues. We will wait a bit for Michael’s feedback before passing the Sub Team’s input to Analysis Group. Staff also corrected the screengrab for Q2 (please find attached). Thanks for pointing it out, Susan! Best Regards, Mary, Julie, Ariel & Berry From: Susan Payne <susan.payne@valideus.com<mailto:susan.payne@valideus.com>> Date: Tuesday, August 28, 2018 at 8:13 AM To: Ariel Liang <ariel.liang@icann.org<mailto:ariel.liang@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: [Ext] RE: TM Owner Survey - Beta Testers' Feedback - Review by COB Tue, 28 August Hi all, although will defer to Michael on this, for what it’s worth I have reviewed the feedback and made some comments inline. I also have a couple of comments of my own that I noticed as I was using the test link. In the introductory questions, the question: “Approximately how many of your company’s trademarks have been recorded with the TMCH?”, if the respondent selects “don’t know/not sure” they get the message that since they haven’t recorded any marks in the TMCH the survey terminates – and I then couldn’t go back to change my answer. Is that what we intend? It seems like someone might not be the person in the company who handled the TMCH recordal and might not want to guess how many marks they recorded, but still could have useful insight on some of the later questions because they have been the one making decisions about registering domains. On the question “How did price affect your company’s decision to seek Sunrise Period registrations?” I thought we were making a change so that it’s clear if we are asking about higher or lower price throughout. Otherwise theoretically a respondent could have in mind that the lower the price the more likely they are to register and tick option 2, whereas someone else could be thinking about higher price and tick option 4 – when we get the results we won’t know what they were thinking. Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy | Valideus Ltd 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 [mailto:gnso-rpm-data-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Ariel Liang Sent: 27 August 2018 23:45 To: gnso-rpm-data@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-data@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-rpm-data] TM Owner Survey - Beta Testers' Feedback - Review by COB Tue, 28 August Dear Michael and all, Beta testers have reviewed the TM Owner survey and provided feedback. Test link: http://ICANNTrademarkHolders.cloudssi.com/login.html [icanntrademarkholders.cloudssi.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__icanntrademarkholders.cl...>. Please see below a summary of feedback/suggestion from the beta testers (technical issues reported by the testers have been forwarded to Analysis Group directly). Staff took screenshots of the questions that testers had feedback and created numbering for ease of reference. By COB Tuesday, 28 August, please be so kind to let us your input. Analysis Group will implement the changes accordingly. Thank you for your time and help! Best Regards, Mary, Julie, Ariel, and Berry === General Comment: * Do a global change of replacing “company” with “company/organization” in all survey questions and answer options in order to cover the non-profit, non-commercial entities [SP – sounds fine to me and reflects changes made in other surveys] Q1: Is your company a for-profit enterprise or not-for-profit? * Ask respondents to explain the nature of their company/organization’s entity. Respondents in developing countries may not know the binary. [SP – I honestly don’t think this is a big issue. I don’t think we intend this question to use these terms as they exist in US company law. Even if you are a non-US entity I think you can work out whether you’re a commercial organization or one where profit is not the primary driver. There’s also a “don’t know” option and “prefer not to respond”] Q2: Approximately How many domain names matching any of your company’s trademarks have you applied to register during any new generic top-level domain (gTLD) Sunrise Period? * Why respondents are giving the option of saying “not sure/don’t know”? [SP – the screen grab Q2 seems to be for a different question. If they tick “not sure/don’t know” does the survey terminate? I don’t think it should since there are still Claims questions. But in any event I think respondents should be encouraged to give an approximate in all of the questions where they are asked about volume – we don’t want the questioning to terminate because someone cannot remember the precise number.] Q3: Has your company registered a domain name matching any of your company's trademarks in a new generic top-level domain (new gTLD)? * Provide examples of new gTLDs. Consider adding the pop-up message that includes the list of new gTLDs strings used in the registrant survey. [SP – seems a sensible change based on what we did for registrants. But this question is called “Sunrise Participation” and yet the question does not actually refer to registration during sunrise. Assume that is deliberate (ie because we want brand owner registrants to answer even if they registered their names after the sunrise, so that we can get their reasoning behind that decision)] Q4: In what new generic top-level domains (gTLDs), if any, did your company decide not to seek a Sunrise Period registration due to price? * Why the difference between “decide to seek” versus “decide not to seek”? For confidentiality reasons? [SP – see my comment above about price above. Regarding the comment from the tester, this is because we’re interested in knowing where price was a discouragement rather than the reverse.] Q5: Should Registry Operators be required to publicly publish their reserved names lists? * This question can be included in the registrant survey, if not too late for implementation. Q6: In the event a Registry has placed terms on its reserved names list and later decides to release them for registration, should the Registry be required to provide notice of the release to Trademark Owners who have recorded trademarks in the Trademark Clearinghouse (TMCH)? * Replace “terms” with “strings”? [SP – I don’t feel too strongly, but think that “terms” is a more generally-understood term, strings is more of an industry-specific term which a respondent might not be familiar with.] * Add “all” before “Trademark Owners” to better differentiate this question to the one after the next (see Q7) [SP – I don’t feel strongly] Q7: In the event a Registry has placed terms on its reserved names list and later decides to release them for registration, should the Registry be required to provide the owner of the released trademark that matches the domain name and is recorded in the TMCH with a priority opportunity to register the domain name upon its release? * Replace “terms” with “strings”? [SP – same comment as above] Q8: What was the outcome of your company’s actions? Please note that you may select multiple options. * Qualify “Complaint” in the answer option no.3? I.e., what Complaint and to whom it was made? [SP – I think this is fine. This refers back to the previous Q where UDRP and URS Complaints were an option] Q9: Has your company ever brought a Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy (UDRP), Uniform Rapid Suspension System (URS), or litigation proceeding against a domain name registered in a new generic top-level domain (gTLD)? If yes, approximately how many? * Replace “against” with “in respect of” – you bring a proceeding against someone, in respect of something. [SP – agree] * Add links to URS and UDRP pages on icann.org: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/urs-2014-01-09-en [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_resources...>, https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/help/dndr/udrp-en [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_resources...> [SP – fine] Q10: In approximately how many of the UDRP, URS, or litigation cases that you brought against a domain name in a new gTLD was the domain name at issue an exact match of your company’s trademark as recorded in the Trademark Clearinghouse? If you are uncertain of the number, you may skip this question. * Replace “against” with “in respect of” – you bring a proceeding against someone, in respect of something. [SP – agree] Q11: In approximately how many of the UDRP, URS, or litigation cases that you brought against a domain name in a new gTLD was the domain name at issue a “creative misspelling” of your company’s trademark? If you are uncertain of the number, you may skip this question. * Replace “against” with “in respect of” – you bring a proceeding against someone, in respect of something. [SP – agree] Q12: In approximately how many of the UDRP, URS, or litigation cases that you brought against a domain name in a new gTLD was the domain name at issue a combination of an exact match of your company’s trademark as recorded in the Trademark Clearinghouse and some other terms or characters? If you are uncertain of the number, you may skip this question. * Replace “against” with “in respect of” – you bring a proceeding against someone, in respect of something. [SP – agree] Q13: Approximately how many of the UDRP, URS, or litigation cases that you brought against a domain name in a new gTLD were filed for other reasons? If you are uncertain of the number, you may skip this question. * Replace “against” with “in respect of” – you bring a proceeding against someone, in respect of something. [SP – agree] Q14: Please indicate for what other reason(s) your company filed a Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy (UDRP), Uniform Rapid Suspension System (URS), or litigation proceeding against domain name applications. If you prefer to not respond, you may skip this question. * Replace “against” with “in respect of” – you bring a proceeding against someone, in respect of something. [SP – agree] Q15: In how many of these cases were you successful? If you are uncertain of the number, you may skip this question. * Add a “N/A” or “Don’t know/not sure” option? If so, this option should apply to other similar questions. [SP – isn’t skipping it sufficient?] Q16: In what new generic top-level domains (gTLDs), if any, did your company decide to seek a Sunrise Period registration? If you prefer to not respond, you may skip this question. * Add “(not legacy TLDs such as .com, .org, .net, or country code top level domains such as .us, .eu, .cn)” after “In what new generic top-level domains (gTLDs)” [SP – haven’t we already told them what a new gTLD is – in the same way that was done for the registrant survey? If so, we should and then this clarification is not necessary] Q17: Why did your company miss the registration window end date? Please select all that apply. * Add the following answer option “the process of the registration was too long and we missed the window because of it” [SP – this seems like a particular experience someone had, but I can’t believe it was a regular occurrence since most registrations are practically instantaneous. I think the “other” option is sufficient] Q18: Would a 60-day Sunrise Period be preferable to a 30-day period? * Question is confusing. Start date sunrise is shorter (30 days), but it has first come first served rule, and end-date is longer (60 days), but the terms are different (highest bidder etc.) [SP – this feels like déjà vu. I’ve been saying throughout this process that the start date and end date sunrises are different and the surveys keep conflating them. I think we can still get feedback on whether 60 days is viewed as better than 30 days, but it does not take into account that the amount of notice you get is different and that that the time at which names are allocated is also different]
participants (2)
-
Ariel Liang -
Michael Graham (ELCA)