[gnso-rpm-wg] FOR REVIEW: Annotated Open TMCH Poll Results (Re: Agenda and documents for the next RPM Working Group call)

[Phil Corwin]

Thanks to both Mary and Amr for compiling this analysis.

I’d urge all WG members to devote a few minutes, if possible, to reviewing the breakdown before tomorrow’s call, to at least become familiar with the methodology.

Look forward to a lively and informative call,
Philip

Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal
Virtualaw LLC
1155 F Street, NW
Suite 1050
Washington, DC 20004
202-559-8597/Direct
202-559-8750/Fax
202-255-6172/Cell

Twitter: @VlawDC

"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey

From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Mary Wong
Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2017 3:00 PM
To: gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] FOR REVIEW: Annotated Open TMCH Poll Results (Re: Agenda and documents for the next RPM Working Group call)

Dear all,

Please find attached an updated version of the results of the Open TMCH Questions Poll – as requested on the call last week, the update made was to: (1) insert information as to the breakdown of who (e.g. registry, registrar, registrant, TM owner, other) answered “Yes”, “No”, or “I can live with this” to each question; and (2) indicate the same with respect to the comments made to each question.

In reviewing this updated set of results, please note the following:

  *   A number of respondents identified with more than one category (e.g. “Registrant/TM Owner”) when answering the poll.


  *   As a result, the breakdown of the numbers for each answer reflects all the different sets of respondents, since it was not possible for staff to assign respondents who identified with more than one category to one specific category only.


  *   In consequence of this “cross-categorization” of some respondents, it may not be possible to draw clear and clean conclusions in some cases (e.g. whether all TM owners said Yes or No). However, we hope that the breakdown gives a better sense of who is more likely to have said Yes or No in some instances than the raw percentages from last week, especially when coupled with the comments to each answer that are now also similarly annotated.

In reviewing the updates with the Working Group co-chairs, staff realized that It may be helpful to also have available the breakdown by respondent numbers (e.g. 2 respondents said Yes, 3 said No) rather than simply in percentages of percentages – as such, staff will endeavor to have those numbers available by the time of our call tomorrow, at least for Questions 3, 7, 8, 9 and 13 (highlighted in the agenda for tomorrow).

We will also post this document, along with the others sent previously with the proposed agenda, to the Working Group’s wiki space for this meeting.

Thanks and cheers
Mary




From: Mary Wong <mary.wong at icann.org<mailto:mary.wong at icann.org>>
Date: Friday, July 21, 2017 at 19:55
To: "gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>" <gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>>
Subject: Agenda and documents for the next RPM Working Group call

Dear all,

The proposed agenda for the next RPM Working Group call, scheduled for Wednesday 26 July at 1700 UTC, is as follows:


  1.  Roll call (via Adobe Connect and phone bridge only); updates to Statements of Interest
  2.  Continue discussion on the poll results for the Open TMCH Questions (focus on Questions 3, 7-9, and 13)
NOTE: the collated poll results were distributed prior to our last call and are available here: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/66091891/Open%20TMCH%20Questions%20Poll%20Results%20-%2017%20July%202017.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1500486659000&api=v2

  1.  Review draft data collection proposal for the Sunrise RPM (see attached)
  2.  Next steps/next meeting

For Agenda Item #3, please note that the document being circulated is a staff draft, which the Working Group co-chairs have not had the chance to review fully. It is being distributed at this time, with the co-chairs’ consent, to allow Working Group members to review the contents with a view to providing comments and suggestions for discussion by the rest of the group.

You will see that the first two columns in the document reflect the refined Charter questions and the proposals for data collection as formulated by the Sunrise Sub Team. The third column reflects suggestions from staff for possible starting points for data collection, as well as questions on methodology for further discussion by the Working Group.

Thanks and cheers
Mary
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/attachments/20170725/61fc4b40/attachment-0001.html>