Responses to previous follow up questions by the Analysis Group
Dear all, As noted in my previous email, please find below the responses from the Analysis Group to those questions that were raised by a few Working Group members (identified in parenthesis in the applicable questions) on the call that we did with the Analysis Group some weeks ago. Some of these responses have been shared with the Trademark Claims Sub Team as part of their mandate to identify additional data collection that may be needed. Follow Up Questions from the Working Group Call with the Analysis Group: 1. On page 9 of the Revised Report, it says the median TMs registered in the TMCH was 1. Can we get more detail in buckets? (e.g. # that registered 2-5, 6-10, 11-50, 51-100, etc.) (George Kirikos) * We would be happy to provide this information, subject to a new/amended revised SOW with ICANN as this will entail some additional analysis. 2. On page 9 of the Revised Report, the top 10 most popular strings (e.g. SMART, FOREX, HOTEL, etc) were listed. Can we get the top 500? (George Kirikos) * Yes, we can provide this information under the new/amended revised SOW as this will entail a small amount of additional work. 3. The Revised Report indicates in several areas that conclusions could not be reached because various parties failed to respond to requests from Analysis Group for additional data. It would be great to receive additional context from Analysis Group on the specific requests it made, to whom, and any reasons given for failure to respond or provide the requested data. (question from Phil Marano) i. Registration attempt and abandonment rates outside the Claims Service Period * Our data request was sent to a sample of registrars that offer registrations in the most popular new TLDs. * We requested data on all new gTLD domain registration attempts: the attempted domain name (e.g., Domain.newTLD), the date of the registration attempt, and indication for whether a Claims Service notification was sent, and an indication of whether the registration was completed. * We received data from one registrar. ii. Commercial Watch Services and Global Blocking Programs data * To understand how these services interact with TMCH services, we would want to see which trademark holders are enrolled in commercial services, what services they use, how much they pay, and how this seems to affect their use of TMCH services (e.g., does it reduce their probability of making Sunrise registrations?). * We did not request this information from commercial watch services or registries offering global blocking programs. iii. Sunrise registration price data * Our data request was sent to a sample of registries who had shared general availability and (in some cases) Sunrise pricing data with us for AG's New gTLD reports. * We requested data on Sunrise and general availability registration pricing. * We did not receive enough responses to generate a meaningful sample of pricing data to conduct a comparison of Sunrise prices and general availability prices. 4. If the registration application was abandoned, Analysis Group could not see the DOMAIN applied for, so there's no way of tracing duplicate pings, etc.? (question from Michael Graham) * That is correct. If no registration was made, it is possible that multiple abandoned attempts were made to register the same domain. 5. Do we know if a user who got a Claims Notice and abandoned their attempt to register then subsequently decided later to go back and register the domain despite the Claims Notice? (question from Kristine Dorrain) * We cannot trace potential registrants in the data (for example, we do not have ISP addresses), so we're not able to identify return applicants. 6. Are there data on abandonment of registrations where there is no Claims Notice (e.g. legacy TLDs)? Do we have any data on abandonment during the same periods for those starting the registration process but not receiving a Claims Notice? (question from Griffin Barnett) * Data on abandonment outside of the Claims Period would be ideal (as listed above in the response to question #3), however we were not able to collect this data. We requested registration attempt and abandonment data from registrars, however, we only received data from one registrar. We do not have information on registration activity for legacy TLDs, but legacy TLD registration activity may not be a good comparable for registration activity in new gTLDs, since domains in legacy TLDs may have a different value to registrants than new gTLD domains. Legacy TLDs were also available at a different time than new gTLDs, and it is possible that registrant behavior has changed over time. Thanks and cheers Mary
Hi folks, Responses inline: On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 6:58 AM, Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org> wrote:
Follow Up Questions from the Working Group Call with the Analysis Group:
1. On page 9 of the Revised Report, it says the median TMs registered in the TMCH was 1. Can we get more detail in buckets? (e.g. # that registered 2-5, 6-10, 11-50, 51-100, etc.) (George Kirikos)
We would be happy to provide this information, subject to a new/amended revised SOW with ICANN as this will entail some additional analysis.
In order to have calculated the median statistic, that means the Analysis Group had a dataset which consisted of a single column like: # of TMs recorded ------------------------- 1 3 5 6 1 3 1 1 etc. with every row representing a user of the TMCH. The amount of analysis to turn that into buckets simply involves *sorting* that data in ascending order, and then setting the breakpoints for the buckets! (i.e. taking a look at where the rows change from 1 to 2, 5 to 6, 10 to 11, etc.). The idea that there should be a "new/amended revised SOW" seems to me like an attempt to extract additional money from ICANN, and further delay the work of this PDP. In lieu of this ""new/amended revised SOW", why doesn't the Analysis Group simply export that raw data into either a CSV file or Excel file, and I can take the 3 minutes to sort it myself, and 5 minutes to scroll down and see where those breakpoints change?? Or, will providing the raw data itself require a "new/amended revised SOW"???
2. On page 9 of the Revised Report, the top 10 most popular strings (e.g. SMART, FOREX, HOTEL, etc) were listed. Can we get the top 500? (George Kirikos)
Yes, we can provide this information under the new/amended revised SOW as this will entail a small amount of additional work.
This answer is even sillier than #1. For #1, to calculate the median, the data was unsorted. In order to extract the top 10 most popular strings, this means they have a dataset like #1 in the form of STRING, Download Count, Trademark Holder ---------------------------------------------------------- smart 15,198, Smart Communications, Daimler AG forex 14,823 Forex Bank AB hotel 14,690 Hotel Top Level Domain GMBH etc. from page 9 of the report: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/64066042/Analysis%20Group%2... with all the rows *already sorted*!! Their "work" to date involved simply taking this complete sorted list, and publishing just a subset, namely the *first 10* rows. This "small amount of additional work" involves taking the sorted results (which they already have), and copying/pasting the first 500 rows, instead of the first 10 rows. It's really that simple, folks! [I can see "work" being required to generate the 3rd column, if it was done manually, but that column isn't even that critical; the first 2 columns definitely exist already in a complete set, as there's no other way to extract the top 10 unless you've generated the entire sorted list first). In lieu of this ""new/amended revised SOW", why doesn't the Analysis Group simply export the full sorted data into either a CSV file or Excel file, and I can take the 10 seconds to copy/paste the first 500 rows (instead of the first 10 rows). Or, will providing the raw data itself require a "new/amended revised SOW"??? I'm sure it would take longer for The Analysis Group to provide excuses why they want a new/amended revised SOW for these 2 items than it would take to actually provide the raw data itself, which already exists and is trivial to transform into the requested results. Indeed, I'm amazed that the deliverables to ICANN didn't include the delivery of the raw data that supported the results (i.e. with a proper SOW, ICANN should already have this data). Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
participants (2)
-
George Kirikos -
Mary Wong