[Gnso-rpm-tmch] Revised Questions Listing

Dorrain, Kristine dorraink at amazon.com
Thu Sep 29 21:40:15 UTC 2016 

Hi everyone,

I support this reduced list.  I appreciate the effort to gather data only, Kurt.  I think we can retain the more comprehensive list of questions to ruminate over as a larger group.

My only question is for this question:
--what is the rate of cart abandonment after the TM Claims Notice period?

By “period” we mean, for all TLDs, new and legacy, right?

Best,

Kristine


Kristine Dorrain
Corp Counsel – IP | Amazon | 206.740.9339
dorraink at amazon.com<mailto:rosettek at amazon.com>



From: gnso-rpm-tmch-bounces at icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-tmch-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of kurt at kjpritz.com
Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2016 10:08 PM
To: Kathy Kleiman <kathy at kathykleiman.com>; gnso-rpm-tmch at icann.org
Subject: Re: [Gnso-rpm-tmch] Revised Questions Listing

Hi Everyone:

As I stated earlier, I agree with Kathy that we are asking registrars too many questions and also asking for analysis as well as data gathering. For convenience, here is the last version (Kathy's edits) of the registrar questions and, after that, is a condensed set that is restricted to data gathering, addresses the issues we (or at least I) care most about, and is avoids analysis or subjective staements. (I provide notice that I have put back the question about Sunrise registrations that Kathy deleted. I am pretty sure it goes right to one of the Charter question.)

Current list:

  *   Are you accessing data and records in the TMCH for purposes other than obtaining information necessary for the provision of sunrise and claims services in accordance with ICANN’s user manuals and technical requirements (see https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/about/trademark-clearinghouse/registries-registrars)?
  *   The Analysis Group’s Draft Report on the TMCH seemed to show a high number of Claims Notices issued resulting in a low number of actual consequent registrations. However, the Analysis Group’s data did not include a breakdown of Claims Notices by registrar. Can you provide us with the number of Claims Notices sent by each of your accredited registrars for each new gTLD for which they sold registrations?
  *   To assist us in understanding whether and how the existence and duration of the TM Claims period may have contributed to the low number of registrations, can each registrar tell us what is the rate of cart abandonment for new gTLDs when a potential registrant is exposed to a TM Claims Notice in comparison with the rate following the end of the Claims period? How do those numbers compare to [legacy] gTLDs?
  *   Do you have any evidence to suggest why so many potential registrants apparently do not proceed further with a registration when they receive a TM Claims Notice?
  *   What would you like to see improved about the Claims Notice that you believe will:

     *   assist legitimate users to move forward with registrations and why?
     *   deter cyber squatters and other so-called “bad actors” from proceeding further with the registration process?
Or, is there any data or specific information you have that can help inform the Working Group’s deliberations on this topic? Include feedback from registrants.

  *   Can you describe the timing for which a Claims Notice is displayed to a potential registrant? Are there Potential Registrants who would not see a TM Claims Notice in realtime?
  *   How many TM+50 claims notices were issued? How many resulted in abandoned registrations?
Reduced list:

  *   To assist us in understanding the effectiveness and potential effects of the TM Claims period

     *   what percent of registrations during the claims period resulted in claims notices being sent
     *   what is the rate of cart abandonment for new gTLDs when a potential registrant is exposed to a TM Claims Notice?
     *   what is the rate of cart abandonment when a potential registrant is not exposed to a TM Claims Notice during the Claims period?
     *   what is the rate of cart abandonment after theTM Claims Notice period?

  *   Regarding TM+50 claims:

     *   How many notices were issued?
     *   What percent resulted in abandoned registrations?

  *   What percent of attempted Sunrise registrations:

     *   were denied because the name was reserved or blocked?
     *   were abandoned?

  *   Do you have any comments regarding Sunrise or Claims that you want this group to consider?

I hope this is helpful.

Kurt

--------- Original Message ---------
Subject: Re: [Gnso-rpm-tmch] Revised Questions Listing
From: "Kathy Kleiman" <kathy at kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy at kathykleiman.com>>
Date: 9/22/16 10:22 am
To: gnso-rpm-tmch at icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-tmch at icann.org>

Hi Kurt and All,  Tx you for our discussion last Friday and I look forward to continuing this Friday. I also had a chance to give the docs a close look and I've added some comments to the Charter Questions document. I've also reviewed the SubTeam's List of Questions - working off the redline to try to preserve the concerns raised in some of the deleted questions.

I have to tell you that I comfortable with the Provider questions - which I think should go out immediately, and generally with the Registry questions (as edited).

But the Registrar questions trouble me. We are asking for a huge amount of data and they are potentially very, very timeconsuming. Given that the TMCH Subgroup does not have any Registrar representatives (am I missing someone?), i strongly recommend that this set of questions. in draft, go back to the full WG for review with our Registrar members. I would like to hear their thoughts on how we might phrase these questions in a  fair and balanced way - to encourage the best and fullest responses.

Both files attached in Redline.

Best, Kathy


On 9/15/2016 9:17 PM, kurt at kjpritz.com<mailto:kurt at kjpritz.com> wrote:
Hi Everyone:

Attached are several forms of the questions for registry operators, registrars, et.al. that has been augmented with the questions developed by Susan and Kristine after their review of the charter.

This might be overkill, but I am sending the question list in three forms:

  *   redlines to the last version of the question list that show:

     *   new questions from the charter review,
     *   a few question that were deleted where the group voiced concern,
     *   a few grammatical edits
     *   new comments

  *   a version with those redlines accepted but comments remaining
  *   a clean version.
During the meeting, I recommend we can use the version with redlines accepted but with comments as they can form the basis of our discussion.

I also included a stand-alone list of the questions that were developed from the review of the charter so that you can see the sources of the new questions.

I hope you find this helpful.

Thank you Susan and Kristine.

Regards,

Kurt




_______________________________________________

Gnso-rpm-tmch mailing list

Gnso-rpm-tmch at icann.org<mailto:Gnso-rpm-tmch at icann.org>

https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-tmch

_______________________________________________ Gnso-rpm-tmch mailing list Gnso-rpm-tmch at icann.org<mailto:Gnso-rpm-tmch at icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-tmch
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-tmch/attachments/20160929/f649f92e/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Gnso-rpm-tmch mailing list