[gnso-rpm-wg] [RPM data collection request]

[Beckham, Brian]

Thanks very much Mary and co-chairs,

Let me preface my email by saying that while I did miss a few WG calls in late August, I have gone back and read the transcripts.  And although it is not clear to me exactly how or when, it seems that somewhere along the way, the idea to come up with a list of questions to inform the discussions of this WG (on which I think there was broad agreement – in some cases perhaps only in a spirit of working compromise) seems to have morphed into a call for a survey.

Without seeking to take away from the work that has gone into this, to be honest, when I read through these questions, I land on the conclusion that these questions seem unlikely to provide anything other than yet more opinions and anecdotes.  Virtually none of the questions seek actual data (which would read something like:  how much did you budget for Sunrises, how many would you have participated in if budget was no issue, and how many did you actually participate in?).

Also, the answers to some of them seem so facially obvious that the point of asking them is – to me at least – unclear.  For example, it seems very uncontroversial to say that we already know the answer to “whether Premium Pricing and the use of Premium Names and Reserved Names lists affected TM owners’ willingness to participate in Sunrise.”

In other words, concretely, what is it that the WG now seeks to achieve by issuing a broad survey on these questions?

I would therefore like to suggest we consider leaving these as questions for the WG to consider as it formulates proposed solutions, instead of seeking permission and funds (not to mention additional time) for a survey.
Before today’s call, I would furthermore like to ask:  have the co-chairs considered issuing a preliminary consensus call to see which aspects of the RPMs we should leave behind as incapable of consensus (e.g., doing away with the TMCH or Sunrises), and which aspects there may be scope for further discussions that could lead to consensus recommendations?

Finally, one important caveat:  I would have absolutely no problem in principle in asking these or other questions to make the best and most informed recommendations we can.  I do however question whether the proposed survey will not assist us to this end.

Thanks for considering, and speak to you all soon,

Brian


From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Mary Wong
Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2017 6:21 AM
To: gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] Agenda and documents for RPM Working Group call on Wednesday 6 September 2017

Dear all,

The proposed agenda for our next Working Group call, coming up today at 1700 UTC, is as follows:


  1.  Roll call (via Adobe Connect and phone bridge only); updates to Statements of Interest
  2.  Review draft GNSO Council data collection request (including suggested prioritization levels from the Working Group co-chairs)
  3.  Next steps/next meeting

For agenda item #2, the following documents are attached:

  *   A draft request to the GNSO Council, in the form prescribed by the GNSO Operating Procedures, outlining the request, the rationale for the request, an initial estimated budget and list of possible sources, as well as attachments detailing the Charter questions and data collection tasks being contemplated.


  *   A Google Doc showing all the various data collection tasks identified to date (as noted in Attachment 2 to the draft request form described above), where the Working Group co-chairs have noted a preferred prioritization level to each task.

The staff understanding is that we will be focusing on a review of the Google Doc on the call.

Thanks and cheers
Mary
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/attachments/20170906/14114e1e/attachment-0001.html>