Dear all, We have received the responses from the Analysis Group to the additional follow up questions that had been sent to them (below) last month. These responses are listed under Section A of the attached document. You may recall also that, following the call between the Working Group and Greg Rafert and Stacey Chan of the Analysis Group in April, they also responded to an initial set of follow up questions. These initial responses have been circulated previously; however, for your convenient reference, we have incorporated them into Section B of the attached document. Please let us know if you wish to discuss either the initial or the more recent responses, or if you have additional questions. We will also post these responses to the Working Group wiki space. Thanks and cheers Mary From: Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org> Date: Monday, June 5, 2017 at 06:08 To: "gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg@Icann.org> Subject: LAST CALL: Follow up questions for the Analysis Group Dear all, If you recall, we had asked that Working Group members send, by mid-May, any further follow up questions they may have for the Analysis Group relating to their revised report on the TMCH. If you had any questions that you had not submitted following their call with us several weeks ago, we ask that you send them to this list no later than this Wednesday 7 June. FYI, we have sent them the additional questions that were asked by several Working Group members on that call, and will forward the responses received to those in a separate email. For this last call, we have so far received the following suggested questions from John McElwaine, which have been passed through the Working Group co-chairs so staff will be sending them to the Analysis Group this week. 1) With respect to the Claims Service data referenced on page 7 of the Report, did this data include or identify the name of the registrar that provided the Claims Notices? 2) Why were there duplicate records in this Claims Service data. 3) How did IBM know that many registrars downloaded records from the TMDB? And why could these download attempts not be accounted? 4) Who were the two registrars that averaged more than 20 download attempts referenced on page 7 of the Report. 5) What does the reference to "individual" being a "Trademark Holder" in Table 1 on page 8 represent? 6) Did you ask registrars what their abandonment rate was for .COM domain name registration attempts? 7) Why could you not observe the registration abandonment rate for registrations that are attempted outside of the Claims Service period? Thanks and cheers Mary