[Gnso-dmpm-wg] - Data Request IRTP Use Case

Wed Mar 4 07:27:01 UTC 2015

Hi All

It strikes me that developing the right metrics is of fundamental importance
but challenging for this exercise.  

Theo's comment about different registrar business models illustrates the
complexity when requesting data from registrars. Requesting data from the
other data sources may not be  straightforward either. For example:

1)	Acquire total amount of transfers before and after policy
implementation
2)	Acquire transfer complaints submitted to ICANN before and after
policy implementation

In relation to 1), I am not sure how total amount of transfers before and
after policy implementation could be used to "determine if the IRTP-B thru
IRTP-D Consensus Policies enhanced and/or improved the transfer process".
Let's say there were 4 million before and 4.2 million after, what does this
mean?  To me, the number should be proportional but even so, it is unlikely
to be indicative, let alone "conclusive".  However, if we only look at the
issue of "registrar lock" (ClientTransferProhibited status), the data on
"transfer-losing-nacked" from the monthly reports and trending may be
useful.  

In relation to 2),  below are the numbers taken from ICANN Compliance annual
reports:

Year 	Number of Transfer Complaints
2012	6799
2013	4962
2014	6477

But these numbers do not tell the whole story. According to Compliance's
slide presentation to registrars during ICANN 52, just over 50% of those
complaints are "valid". 

I hope these examples demonstrate the need to be clearer about the linkage
between the issue and the data/metric requested.  To this end, I think it
would be helpful to develop a table with the following headers, at the very
least:

	1. the issue, 2. the policy change, 3. implementation date, 4. the
data or metrics required to evaluate the effectiveness of the policy change,
5. the data source(s)

My thinking or hope is that once we are clear about 1 and 2, it will be
easier to develop and fine-tune 4 and 5 will become obvious.

Thoughts?

Pam
-----Original Message-----
From: gnso-dmpm-wg-bounces at icann.org [mailto:gnso-dmpm-wg-bounces at icann.org]
On Behalf Of Berry Cobb
Sent: Sunday, March 01, 2015 3:11 PM
To: 'gtheo'; 'Steve Chan'
Cc: gnso-dmpm-wg at icann.org
Subject: Re: [Gnso-dmpm-wg] - Data Request IRTP Use Case

Hi Theo,

Thank you for the input.  I might ask that you provide your input into to
the RFI document that was sent.  Comments in the doc will suffice.  I'm not
sure if you read the transcript or the MP3 from our last call, but if the
group chooses to advance this RFI, one the WG polishes the document further,
our next step is to send this over to the IRTP-D mailing list for input
prior to us sending it out to the broader GNSO for their input.

If you will recall, this is only a "Use Case" and not an actual request
although someday it could become real.  The closer we can make it real, the
better off we will be.

As also mentioned on the call, this use case will likely not be instrumental
to the groups possible recommendations, but it could perhaps uncover a few
things we might have missed.

Again thanks for the feedback.

B

Berry Cobb
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN)
720.839.5735
mail at berrycobb.com
@berrycobb

-----Original Message-----
From: gnso-dmpm-wg-bounces at icann.org [mailto:gnso-dmpm-wg-bounces at icann.org]
On Behalf Of gtheo
Sent: Friday, February 27, 2015 06:40
To: Steve Chan
Cc: gnso-dmpm-wg at icann.org
Subject: Re: [Gnso-dmpm-wg] - Data Request IRTP Use Case

Thank you Steve and group for this use case.

Few quick comments.

I have the feeling that the RFI assumes that Registrars have a transfer
process in place that is identical for every Registrar.
The request itself at the Registry level is identical, the procedure however
before the transfer is requested at the Registry level is different for
Registrars and can fail at many levels depending on the procedure being
used.

The RFI does not make a difference between Registrar business models. 
The numbers when it comes to support will vary wildly with Registrars who
only deal with resellers compared to Registrars who deal with end
users/registrants.

Best regards,

Theo Geurts

Realtime Register B.V.

Ceintuurbaan 32A
8024 AA - ZWOLLE - The Netherlands

T: +31.384530759
F: +31.384524734
U: www.realtimeregister.com
E: support at realtimeregister.com

Steve Chan schreef op 2015-02-26 02:14:
> Dear WG Members,
> 
> Per the working group call held on Tuesday 24 February 2015, staff is 
> re-circulating the IRTP use case/executive summary document for the 
> group to consider whether it would like to pursue this effort. If 
> there is interest in circulating this use case to interested parties 
> (e.g., to registrars, registries, IRTP Part D WG, etc.), staff feels 
> that it is critical that the WG review and refine the use case. As was 
> discussed on the call, while the use case may not be critical to 
> developing the recommendations, it does provide some benefits, chief 
> amongst those is providing real world testing and refinement of the 
> data request template. Please discuss on list the direction the group 
> would like to take for the use case exercise.
> 
> Best,
> 
> STEVEN CHAN
> Sr. Policy Manager
> 
> ICANN
> 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300
> 
> Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536
> steve.chan at icann.org
> 
> direct: +1.310.301.3886
> mobile: +1.310.339.4410
> 
> tel: +1.310.301.5800
> 
> fax: +1.310.823.8649
> _______________________________________________
> Gnso-dmpm-wg mailing list
> Gnso-dmpm-wg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-dmpm-wg

_______________________________________________
Gnso-dmpm-wg mailing list
Gnso-dmpm-wg at icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-dmpm-wg

_______________________________________________
Gnso-dmpm-wg mailing list
Gnso-dmpm-wg at icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-dmpm-wg