<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=Windows-1252">
<style type="text/css" style="display:none;"><!-- P {margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;} --></style>
</head>
<body dir="ltr">
<div id="divtagdefaultwrapper" style="font-size:12pt;color:#000000;font-family:Calibri,Helvetica,sans-serif;" dir="ltr">
<p style="margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0">I have started working on the registrant/potential registrant questions, as Kristine wisely suggested. Would it make sense to circulate my written comments to the Analysis Group as well as this group? If so, what contact
information should I use for them? W/r/t the registrants & potential registrants, it seems that a bit more background is needed, in particular the first date anyone actually could have registered a domain name in a new gTLD--does anyone remember that date
offhand?</p>
<p style="margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0"><br>
</p>
<div id="Signature">
<div style="font-family:Tahoma; font-size:13px">
<div style="font-family:Tahoma; font-size:13px">
<div><br>
</div>
Rebecca Tushnet</div>
<div style="font-family:Tahoma; font-size:13px">Frank Stanton Professor of First Amendment Law, Harvard Law School<br>
703 593 6759 </div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<hr style="display:inline-block;width:98%" tabindex="-1">
<div id="divRplyFwdMsg" dir="ltr"><font face="Calibri, sans-serif" style="font-size:11pt" color="#000000"><b>From:</b> Gnso-rpm-data <gnso-rpm-data-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Ariel Liang <ariel.liang@icann.org><br>
<b>Sent:</b> Thursday, June 7, 2018 5:19:34 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> gnso-rpm-data@icann.org<br>
<b>Subject:</b> [Gnso-rpm-data] Actions & Notes: RPM Data Sub Team 07 June 2018</font>
<div> </div>
</div>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<meta name="x_Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<style>
<!--
@font-face
{font-family:Helvetica}
@font-face
{font-family:Wingdings}
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math"}
@font-face
{font-family:DengXian}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri}
@font-face
{}
p.x_MsoNormal, li.x_MsoNormal, div.x_MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif}
a:x_link, span.x_MsoHyperlink
{color:#0563C1;
text-decoration:underline}
a:x_visited, span.x_MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{color:#954F72;
text-decoration:underline}
p.x_MsoListParagraph, li.x_MsoListParagraph, div.x_MsoListParagraph
{margin-top:0in;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:0in;
margin-left:.5in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif}
span.x_EmailStyle17
{font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext}
p.x_p1, li.x_p1, div.x_p1
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:Helvetica}
p.x_p2, li.x_p2, div.x_p2
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:Helvetica}
span.x_apple-converted-space
{}
.x_MsoChpDefault
{font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif}
@page WordSection1
{margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in}
div.x_WordSection1
{}
ol
{margin-bottom:0in}
ul
{margin-bottom:0in}
-->
</style>
<div lang="EN-US" link="#0563C1" vlink="#954F72">
<div class="x_WordSection1">
<p class="x_MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt; color:black">Dear All,</span></p>
<p class="x_MsoNormal" style="orphans:auto; text-align:start; widows:auto; word-spacing:0px">
<span style="font-size:11.0pt; color:black"> </span></p>
<p class="x_MsoNormal" style="orphans:auto; text-align:start; widows:auto; word-spacing:0px">
<span style="font-size:11.0pt; color:black">Please see below the action items and notes captured by staff from the Data Sub Team call held on 07 June 2018 (1700 UTC). Staff have posted to the wiki space the action items and notes. <i>Please note that these
will be high-level notes and are not meant as a substitute for the transcript or recording.</i> The recording, AC chat, and attendance records are posted on the wiki<span class="x_apple-converted-space"> </span>at:<span class="x_apple-converted-space"> </span><a href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_GisFBQ&d=DwMGaQ&c=WO-RGvefibhHBZq3fL85hQ&r=E-M4OQvQBo8UWqE1LwEiDR3PcWlfM0I-0jiI1c4ous0&m=9x0Ol_-w6sTKyVMj9dd91d31UkilsfcX1zBHjTlq6BA&s=Lq34moAYmRBNMugCvnSqwf3tLiMd0oVZLS1dCFTehmM&e=">https://community.icann.org/x/GisFBQ</a>
</span></p>
<p class="x_MsoNormal" style="orphans:auto; text-align:start; widows:auto; word-spacing:0px">
<span style="font-size:11.0pt; color:black"> </span></p>
<p class="x_MsoNormal" style="orphans:auto; text-align:start; widows:auto; word-spacing:0px">
<span style="font-size:11.0pt; color:black">Best Regards,</span></p>
<p class="x_MsoNormal" style="orphans:auto; text-align:start; widows:auto; word-spacing:0px">
<span style="font-size:11.0pt; color:black">Ariel</span></p>
<p class="x_MsoNormal" style="orphans:auto; text-align:start; widows:auto; word-spacing:0px">
<span style="font-size:11.0pt; color:black"> </span></p>
<p class="x_MsoNormal" style="orphans:auto; text-align:start; widows:auto; word-spacing:0px">
<b><span style="font-size:11.0pt; color:black">Ariel Xinyue Liang</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt; color:black"></span></p>
<p class="x_MsoNormal" style="orphans:auto; text-align:start; widows:auto; word-spacing:0px">
<span style="font-size:11.0pt; color:black">Policy Analyst | Washington, DC </span></p>
<p class="x_MsoNormal" style="orphans:auto; text-align:start; widows:auto; word-spacing:0px">
<span style="font-size:11.0pt; color:black">Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) </span></p>
<p class="x_MsoNormal" style="orphans:auto; text-align:start; widows:auto; word-spacing:0px">
<span style="font-size:11.0pt; color:black"> </span></p>
<p class="x_MsoNormal" style="orphans:auto; text-align:start; widows:auto; word-spacing:0px">
<b><span style="font-size:11.0pt; color:black">----------------</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt; color:black"></span></p>
<p class="x_MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"> </span></p>
<p class="x_MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">ACTION ITEMS</span></b></p>
<ul type="disc" style="margin-top:0in">
<li class="x_MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:0in"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">AG to start incorporating edits/comments already discussed in the previous meetings and reflect them on the Google docs, so the Sub Team could review.<span class="x_apple-converted-space"> </span></span></li><li class="x_MsoNormal" style="color:black"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Staff to Doodle additional call times for the next two weeks, including Wednesdays and Fridays</span></li><li class="x_MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:0in"><span style="font-size:11.0pt; color:black">Sub Team to use the Friday meeting to work on the TM/Brand Owner survey</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt"></span></li><li class="x_MsoNormal" style="color:black"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Sub Team to continue providing redline comments/suggested edits on the Google Doc, led by the original author of each survey.
</span></li></ul>
<p class="x_MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"> </span></p>
<p class="x_MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt"> </span></b></p>
<p class="x_MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">NOTES</span></b></p>
<p class="x_p1"><span style="font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">General Comments
<span class="x_apple-converted-space"> </span></span></p>
<ul type="disc" style="margin-top:0in">
<li class="x_p1" style=""><span style="font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">AG comments that the length of the survey needs to be balanced, considering the impact to response rate. Concerns with survey fatigue<span class="x_apple-converted-space">.</span>
Sub Team should also consider what are other ways to gather data for the questions that may be cut from the surveys?<span class="x_apple-converted-space"> </span></span></li><li class="x_p1" style=""><span style="font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">The questions related to sunrise pricing may be hard to illicit responses from ROs, based on AG's experience with TMCH review.<span class="x_apple-converted-space"> </span></span></li><li class="x_p1" style=""><span style="font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Sub Team members have strong objection regarding the approach the surveys are handled; rushing through the surveys without letting members thoroughly review the documents
is very concerning.<span class="x_apple-converted-space"> </span></span></li><li class="x_p1" style=""><span style="font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">There are<span class="x_apple-converted-space"> </span>anecdotal questions that one cannot predict how the respondents would respond. Would it be better to revert back
to the anecdotal questions instead of trying to convert them into quantifiable questions to illicit data?<span class="x_apple-converted-space"> </span>Selected number of open ended questions can be very useful.<span class="x_apple-converted-space"> </span>AG
could do that, but we need to be cautious about the number of open ended questions. The ideal survey is to have no more than 25% of the questions that are open-ended, otherwise the drop off rate would be high.<span class="x_apple-converted-space"> </span></span></li><li class="x_p1" style=""><span style="font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Sub Team commented that while timeline needs to be respected, it should not be driving the decision of Sub Team. Sufficient time needs to be devoted to get the questions
right.</span></li><li class="x_p1" style=""><span style="font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Registries who want to talk to the Sub Team have had and continue to have plenty of opportunity to do so.<span class="x_apple-converted-space"> </span></span></li><li class="x_p1" style=""><span style="font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Some charter questions have no basis. The Sub Team don't understand why certain people said what they said in the original charter questions. It is hard to convert such
questions into data driven questions. That's why this whole exercise has been such a challenge.</span></li><li class="x_p1" style=""><span style="font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Sub Team anticipate weeks to work on the surveys with AG, but this length of time could not be provided. There are budgetary limitations in this. Is there an alternative
approach to get valuable information to the AG in real time? </span></li><li class="x_p1" style=""><span style="font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">There are many gaps, as well as the lack of historic context in the RFP Appendix. Sub Team would need to take AG through all the sections after having some time to review
the Google Docs before the next calls. The "new eyes" are certainly helpful because it highlights the gaps. AG would benefit from going through the background before they take another pass.<span class="x_apple-converted-space"> </span></span></li><li class="x_p1" style=""><span style="font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Sub Team are encouraged to provide redline comments/edits in the Google Docs, but be mindful that they have other competing priorities.<span class="x_apple-converted-space"> </span>
</span></li><li class="x_p1" style=""><span style="font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Instead of having everyone looking at every survey, Sub Team members who were the original authors of the draft survey questions are encouraged to focus on their respective
survey and provide redline comments/edits.<span class="x_apple-converted-space"> </span></span></li><li class="x_p1" style=""><span style="font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">The draft survey questions do not have 100% consensus in the Sub Team. AG should not treat individual’s comments/edits as something agreed by the whole Sub Team.
</span></li><li class="x_p1" style=""><span style="font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">AG hasn't been invited to provide redline edits on the Google docs yet, but will be able to do so going forward.
</span></li><li class="x_p1" style=""><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">ACTION ITEM:</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> AG to start incorporating edits/comments already discussed in the previous
meetings and reflect them on the Google docs, so the Sub Team could review.<span class="x_apple-converted-space"> </span></span></li><li class="x_p1" style=""><span style="font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Subject to the co-chairs' preferences and the Sub Team's availability, is there any objection to using the next two weeks to finish the surveys? F2F meeting in Panama
may be useful but cannot expect everything be done there. We have to adjust expectations that not everyone can be on all calls in 2 hour blocks.
</span></li><li class="x_p1" style=""><span style="font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Kristine volunteered to work with AG to answer questions and provide clarifications on the RO related questions. Not to wordsmith but to provide context/background.<span class="x_apple-converted-space"> </span>Michael
volunteered for the TM/Brand Owner survey questions. Of course, the whole Sub Team would have the final say about the final survey questions.
</span></li></ul>
<p class="x_p2"><span style="font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> </span></p>
<p class="x_p1"><span style="font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Q16/Q17</span></p>
<ul type="disc" style="margin-top:0in">
<li class="x_p1" style=""><span style="font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Original questions are on page 3 of the RFP Appendix<span class="x_apple-converted-space"> </span></span></li><li class="x_p1" style=""><span style="font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Consider combining these two questions.
</span></li><li class="x_p1" style=""><span style="font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">The aspects that Q16/17 don't cover are the potential benefits if the sunrise period length is changed. The original questions not covered here are -- What were the benefits
(to the registry or to brand owners)? What were the drawbacks? Were there any complaints or was anyone confused? (Include complaints from potential nonbrand owner registrants).</span></li><li class="x_p1" style=""><span style="font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">We cannot ask TM owners what benefit they are getting in this question. We are only asking ROs.<span class="x_apple-converted-space"> </span>Registrars may not be able
to answer these questions with any degree of certainty.</span></li><li class="x_p1" style=""><span style="font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">It is difficult to come up with different options to make these questions more quantifiable. What Sub Team want to know is what they are missing. Why do some people want
to extend the Sunrise period? It is hard to get the answer through a grid/tabulate format. Sub Team specifically try to illicit responses on how Sunrise period is impacted. Sub Team would like to know where the complaints went to and what they were.<span class="x_apple-converted-space"> </span>Sub
Team are more concerned with the 25% of survey questions that are open ended. </span>
</li><li class="x_p1" style=""><span style="font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">AG would like to request the Sub Team to provide suggestions and include additional questions/options to Q16/Q17 to the Google Doc.
</span></li><li class="x_p1" style=""><span style="font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">AG could maintain the grid format of the current questions, but to also include a separate question to illicit anecdotal responses. It may be helpful to also include
questions illiciting "yes, no, maybe" type of responses.<span class="x_apple-converted-space"> </span></span></li><li class="x_p1" style=""><span style="font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">ROs don't have much of the technical costs of Sunrise. It's the registrars who have most of the technical costs.<span class="x_apple-converted-space">
</span>There are also marketing issues related to the sunrise.<span class="x_apple-converted-space"> </span></span></li><li class="x_p1" style=""><span style="font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">It may be helpful to have a couple of Sub Team members preview the survey and see how the questions work.<span class="x_apple-converted-space"> </span></span></li></ul>
<p class="x_p2"><span style="font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> </span></p>
<p class="x_p1"><span style="font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Q18</span></p>
<ul type="disc" style="margin-top:0in">
<li class="x_p1" style=""><span style="font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">The current question is not asking the critical aspect of the original draft question (e.g., duration, perpetual)<span class="x_apple-converted-space"> </span></span></li><li class="x_p1" style=""><span style="font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Would it be better to ask respondents to explain why they rank the requirements the way they do? AG will include this sub question.<span class="x_apple-converted-space"> </span></span></li><li class="x_p1" style=""><span style="font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Not particularly in favor of this question, and the Sub Team are not sure whether it is getting what the Sub Team were trying to ask. Original charter question: Should
there be a different rule for some registries, such as specialized gTLDs (e.g. community or geo TLDs), based on their published registration/eligibility policies? Sub Team needs better wording for this question.<span class="x_apple-converted-space"> </span></span></li><li class="x_p1" style=""><span style="font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Context of the original charter question: when you have specialized TLDs, should brand owners get into the door first? There are other ways to allocate TLDs that are
not contingent to brands. ROs experience a lot of pushbacks related to certain TLDs.<span class="x_apple-converted-space"> </span></span></li><li class="x_p1" style=""><span class="x_apple-converted-space"><span style="font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">I</span></span><span style="font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">nclude a "would you still offer sunrise" after Q18</span></li><li class="x_p1" style=""><span style="font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">AG said that the comment in the survey document is meant to show the charter questions that this section is intended to address</span></li><li class="x_p1" style=""><span style="font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">It may be helpful to include examples to clarify the intention of the original charter question, but the examples should not be limiting type of examples.<span class="x_apple-converted-space"> </span></span></li></ul>
<p class="x_p2"><span style="font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> </span></p>
<p class="x_p1"><span style="font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Q21/Q21a<span class="x_apple-converted-space"> </span></span></p>
<ul type="disc" style="margin-top:0in">
<li class="x_p1" style=""><span style="font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">These questions are vague. Some TLDs don't have registration eligibility restrictions. Some ROs may not understand what these questions are asking. We may need some qualification
for these questions. </span></li><li class="x_p1" style=""><span style="font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Rephrase the question to “Have you had requests for Sunrise from parties that do not have the eligibility?<span class="x_apple-converted-space">” or something else to
that effect. </span></span></li><li class="x_p1" style=""><span style="font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">As worded, the answer should be "yes" for each RO with a QLP</span></li><li class="x_p1" style=""><span style="font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">In the instances where the wording is vague/confusing, AG would welcome direct feedback/redline suggestion in the Google Doc. AG could help rephrase questions to convey
the meaning/context of the questions. Sub Team's input/clarification for content would be helpful.<span class="x_apple-converted-space"> </span></span></li><li class="x_p1" style=""><span style="font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">How can we develop the surveys and word the questions in a way to illicit meaningful data, instead of anecdotal responses.<span class="x_apple-converted-space"> For
</span>Q21 in particular, it would be helpful to know what ideal type of response would look like.<span class="x_apple-converted-space"> </span></span></li></ul>
<p class="x_p2"><span style="font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> </span></p>
<p class="x_p1"><span style="font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Q22</span></p>
<ul type="disc" style="margin-top:0in">
<li class="x_p1" style=""><span style="font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">It may be placed before Q20 and Q21<span class="x_apple-converted-space"> </span></span></li><li class="x_p1" style=""><span style="font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Original question on page 4 of Appendix: How could the ICANN brand protection policies like Sunrise or Claims be altered to better accommodate restricted TLDs (like Community
or GeoTLDs)?</span></li><li class="x_p1" style=""><span style="font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">"How could" is the key, not just "should they".<span class="x_apple-converted-space"> </span>Respondents should suggest practical solutions and identify what they think
would work better. </span></li><li class="x_p1" style=""><span style="font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">AG could include an open-ended sub question to illicit such response.
</span></li></ul>
<p class="x_p2"><span style="font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> </span></p>
<p class="x_p1"><span style="font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Q24</span></p>
<ul type="disc" style="margin-top:0in">
<li class="x_p1" style=""><span style="font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Respondents only need to answer Q24 if they answer yes to Q23</span></li><li class="x_p1" style=""><span style="font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">The word "startup" can be removed.<span class="x_apple-converted-space"> </span></span></li></ul>
<p class="x_p2"><span style="font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> </span></p>
<p class="x_p1"><span style="font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Q26</span></p>
<ul type="disc" style="margin-top:0in">
<li class="x_p1" style=""><span style="font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">While the original draft question is reflected in this proposed question, there is<span class="x_apple-converted-space"> a
</span>follow up question asking for suggestions.<span class="x_apple-converted-space"> </span></span></li><li class="x_p1" style=""><span style="font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">May add a follow up question asking respondents what suggestion they may have to resolve the issues, but not to change the tone of the proposed question.<span class="x_apple-converted-space"> </span>Respondents
only answer the additional question if they have encountered problems.</span></li><li class="x_p1" style=""><span style="font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">AG can add a question that is more forward looking with open text field, but remain concerned with the length of the survey.<span class="x_apple-converted-space"> </span></span></li></ul>
<p class="x_p2"><span style="font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> </span></p>
<p class="x_p1"><span style="font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Q27</span></p>
<ul type="disc" style="margin-top:0in">
<li class="x_p1" style=""><span style="font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Add a gating question<span class="x_apple-converted-space">.</span></span></li><li class="x_p1" style=""><span style="font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Spell out the acronyms<span class="x_apple-converted-space">.</span></span></li></ul>
<p class="x_p2"><span style="font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> </span></p>
<p class="x_p1"><span style="font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Q29b<span class="x_apple-converted-space"> </span></span></p>
<ul type="disc" style="margin-top:0in">
<li class="x_p1" style=""><span style="font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">ROs do not send Claims notices. Registrars may provide more effective responses<span class="x_apple-converted-space">.</span></span></li></ul>
<p class="x_p2"><span style="font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> </span></p>
<p class="x_p1"><span style="font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Q30<span class="x_apple-converted-space"> </span></span></p>
<ul type="disc" style="margin-top:0in">
<li class="x_p1" style=""><span style="font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Similar to Q16/Q17, all the tables descend to a whole range of issues that the Sub Team may not have the time to develop a comprehensive list for.<span class="x_apple-converted-space"> </span></span></li><li class="x_p1" style=""><span style="font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">We should not toss all the grid questions all together. Possibly there is a way to come up with a metric while still gathering anecdotal data.
</span></li><li class="x_p1" style=""><span style="font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">This question is just asking opinions, so respondents would rank based on things that matter to them. Not sure what we would get after sending this question, rather than
seeing respondents advancing their own positions.<span class="x_apple-converted-space"> </span>This holds true for all target groups that would express their own opinions.
</span></li><li class="x_p1" style=""><span style="font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">It may be helpful to give respondents an opportunity to explain the basis of their opinions and “why”. Far more important are the actual stats and metrics that the WG
could come up with. The analysis of the survey results would be crucial.<span class="x_apple-converted-space"> </span></span></li><li class="x_p1" style=""><span style="font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">The format/style of the same type of grid questions need to be consistent among all surveys.
</span></li></ul>
<p class="x_p2"><span style="font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> </span></p>
<p class="x_p1"><span style="font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Q32</span></p>
<ul type="disc" style="margin-top:0in">
<li class="x_p1" style=""><span style="font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">This question doesn’t belong in the Q23-26 section and is perhaps covered by the expansion of other questions now.<span class="x_apple-converted-space"> </span></span></li><li class="x_p1" style=""><span style="font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Questions related to eligibility-restricted TLDs scattered in the survey. Grouping these questions would be more meaningful and can possibly shorten the survey.<span class="x_apple-converted-space"> </span></span></li><li class="x_p1" style=""><span style="font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Ask respondents to indicate which program they are referring to in their answers (e.g., LRP, QLP, ALP).<span class="x_apple-converted-space"> </span>Most ROs won’t offer
just QLP or ALP individually. Many ROs offer more than one program.</span></li><li class="x_p1" style=""><span style="font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Sub Team specifically want to know what changes the respondents would like to see and are less concerned about the problems that they encountered, as we know there are
problems.<span class="x_apple-converted-space"> </span></span></li></ul>
<p class="x_p2"><span style="font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> </span></p>
<p class="x_p1"><span style="font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Procedural Matters<span class="x_apple-converted-space"> </span></span></p>
<ul type="disc" style="margin-top:0in">
<li class="x_MsoNormal" style="color:black"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">ACTION ITEM:
</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Sub Team to use the Friday meeting to work on the TM/Brand Owner survey</span></li><li class="x_MsoNormal" style="color:black"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">ACTION ITEM:
</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Staff to Doodle additional call times for the next two weeks, including Wednesdays and Fridays</span></li></ul>
<p class="x_MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt"> </span></b></p>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>