[Gnso-rpm-data] Proposed agenda and updated tables for the RPM Data Sub Team call this Friday

Thu Oct 26 08:15:44 UTC 2017

I attach a draft of questions or areas of inquiry for Trademark and Brand owners.  I have marked my changes and additions in the attached in red.

Mary: Please take my changes from this and incorporate in the Wiki draft for review at ICANN 60.

Michael R.

From: gnso-rpm-data-bounces at icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-data-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Mary Wong
Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2017 7:12 AM
To: Tushnet, Rebecca <rtushnet at law.harvard.edu>; Kurt Pritz <kurt at kjpritz.com>
Cc: gnso-rpm-data at icann.org
Subject: Re: [Gnso-rpm-data] Proposed agenda and updated tables for the RPM Data Sub Team call this Friday

Hello everyone, and thanks to Kurt and Rebecca for starting this discussion, which staff believes is what the GNSO Council had in mind when requesting that the Working Group consider how to “structure the data request in such a way that the value and relevance of the data is maximized”.

If it will help, here is the text of the relevant Charter questions for the survey of potential registrants, as developed by the Trademark Claims Sub Team and approved by the full Working Group; we have highlighted what seems to us to be the most significant part of each question:

Q1(b) Is the Trademark Claims service having any unintended consequences, such as deterring good-faith domain name applications?

Q3(a) Does the Trademark Claims Notice to domain name applicants meet its intended purpose?

                                 i.            If not, is it intimidating, hard to understand, or otherwise inadequate?

·         If inadequate, how can it be improved?

                               ii.            Does it inform domain name applicants of the scope and limitations of trademark holders’ rights?

·         If not, how can it be improved?

                              iii.            Are translations of the Trademark Claims Notice effective in informing domain name applicants of the scope and limitation of trademark holders’ rights?

With respect to other points raised by Kurt and/or Rebecca:

·         The Trademark Claims Sub Team’s language for surveying potential registrants was: “Consumer survey evidence, perhaps via Amazon Turk or online survey group, using existing Claims Notice and perhaps other alternatives to test comprehension of the Claims Notice among individuals likely to consider registering a domain name.”

·         From the Trademark Claims Sub Team’s discussion, it appears that the idea is to present the Claims Notice to a sample of potential registrants in each of the five global regions, in the primary language (other than English) of that sampled region/potential registrant.

Finally, please permit staff to note again that a full global survey of an undefined number (versus a targeted group or sampling) is far beyond the scope of the budget we will have available. For illustrative purposes, we note that the CCT Review Team’s survey of global Internet users cost over US$200,000 and that Sub Team members like Lori and Michael have also noted the expense involved in these endeavors.

We hope the above-noted information is helpful.

Cheers
Mary

From: <gnso-rpm-data-bounces at icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-data-bounces at icann.org>> on behalf of "Tushnet, Rebecca" <rtushnet at law.harvard.edu<mailto:rtushnet at law.harvard.edu>>
Date: Tuesday, October 24, 2017 at 09:10
To: Kurt Pritz <kurt at kjpritz.com<mailto:kurt at kjpritz.com>>
Cc: "gnso-rpm-data at icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-data at icann.org>" <gnso-rpm-data at icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-data at icann.org>>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-rpm-data] Proposed agenda and updated tables for the RPM Data Sub Team call this Friday

I'm not as pessimistic, especially if we screen for people who've done similar things in the past (not impossible with large internet survey bases like SurveyMonkey).  Regardless of what you think about asking"would you be deterred" straight out, there are other important questions that this group could readily answer--we should be asking questions about what they would think the notice *meant* if they got it.  That, even more than "what would you do in response," would provide data, including but not at all limited to useful data about the likelihood of deterrence.

Rebecca Tushnet
Frank Stanton Professor of First Amendment Law, Harvard Law School
703 593 6759
________________________________
From: Kurt Pritz <kurt at kjpritz.com<mailto:kurt at kjpritz.com>>
Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2017 9:04:01 AM
To: Tushnet, Rebecca
Cc: Ariel Liang; gnso-rpm-data at icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-data at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-rpm-data] Proposed agenda and updated tables for the RPM Data Sub Team call this Friday

Hi Rebecca:

I agree with you.

The point I an making is that I think the data will be pretty sparse among those who have never or not recently registered a domain but now are considering that and then ask them to imagine the process for registering the domain and then ask them to imagine of they would be put off by a claims notice. I see few data points and even fewer reliable ones.

I see low chance of success here.

Do you have anything ideas on how to go about this in another way?

Best regards,

Kurt

On Oct 23, 2017, at 2:31 PM, Tushnet, Rebecca <rtushnet at law.harvard.edu<mailto:rtushnet at law.harvard.edu>> wrote:

My conception is a relatively standard "potential consumer" definition: people who haven't recently registered a new gTLD but would consider doing so, perhaps screened for whether they'd ever registered a domain name as well as whether they'd consider doing so for a new gTLD.  This is the kind of group that internet surveys can plausibly reach.

Rebecca Tushnet
Frank Stanton Professor of First Amendment Law, Harvard Law School
703 593 6759
________________________________
From: gnso-rpm-data-bounces at icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-data-bounces at icann.org> <gnso-rpm-data-bounces at icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-data-bounces at icann.org>> on behalf of Kurt Pritz <kurt at kjpritz.com<mailto:kurt at kjpritz.com>>
Sent: Monday, October 23, 2017 5:26:58 PM
To: Ariel Liang
Cc: gnso-rpm-data at icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-data at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-rpm-data] Proposed agenda and updated tables for the RPM Data Sub Team call this Friday

Hi Ariel:

Thanks for your help. Yes, please move the questions up to no. 4.

Hi everyone:

Here is how I don’t have a clue: I saw the no. 5 first column had the word “registrant” and thought that one was mine. Nonetheless, I think the same set of questions will work for no.4 as well, with some additions that I will make later.

My question is, what is a potential registrant? I don’t see how we gain any useful, reliable information here. Do we ask, “if you were to ever register a domain name and saw this statement, would you be scared off?”  It seems a little odd to me.

I know there is a good answer to this and I am embarrassed to be asking: what is the distinction between a registrant and potential registrant that can be measured in a survey or other type of data gathering?

Thanks everyone and sorry for the misstep.

Kurt.

Sent from my iPhone

On Oct 23, 2017, at 12:39 PM, Ariel Liang <ariel.liang at icann.org<mailto:ariel.liang at icann.org>> wrote:
Dear Kurt and All,

Thank you, Kurt, for providing your input in Table 1.

To facilitate the development of the suggested draft questions, we have converted the Data Request Table document into a Google Document. Kurt’s input has been pasted into the Google Doc. Data Sub Team members and Staff have comment access: https://docs.google.com/a/icann.org/document/d/10qENwqvozS-TZfJiVOx5MG71YIsqeX95WkPqhA64ayE/edit?usp=sharing[docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_a_icann.org_document_d_10qENwqvozS-2DTZfJiVOx5MG71YIsqeX95WkPqhA64ayE_edit-3Fusp-3Dsharing&d=DwMF-g&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=6KvgpChMgmpPcSR3kIL3FOUd46WFAVAztF2ecOTVl7w&s=530Ps78ZWyy9C6b7YSCGYrDIMEGUeC5GCNHFtzb9O3Y&e=>(using ‘comment access’ is to keep track of who made what comments/edits).

Please provide your suggested draft questions directly in your assigned sections in this Google Doc. You may also comment on others’ suggested draft questions.

Section 1 New gTLD Registry Operators (RO): Kristine Dorrain (with help from Susan Payne and Kurt Pritz)
Section 2 Registrars: Susan Payne
Section 3 Trademark & Brand Owners: Michael Graham
Section 4 Domain Name Registrants: Kurt Pritz
Section 5 Potential Registrants: Rebecca Tushnet
Section 6 Public Interest Groups and Trade Associations: Lori Schulman & Michael Graham

Kurt, we noticed that you provided suggested draft question in Section 5 of Table 1. If it is misplaced, please let me know and I will move them to Section 4. If they are meant for Section 5, could you please be so kind to continue with your assigned sections?

Kiran, while your name has not been assigned to any section, you have the option to volunteer to assist whoever may need it.

Last, the google doc is linked from a page[community.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_oZhEB&d=DwMF-g&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=6KvgpChMgmpPcSR3kIL3FOUd46WFAVAztF2ecOTVl7w&s=PHc79J4Hi4vqyDNfnwdsmv5DEZFFlCa4dITQOWP4zBY&e=> within the Sub Team wiki workspace for reference.

Thank you everyone for your time and contribution!

Best Regards
Ariel

Ariel Xinyue Liang
Policy Analyst | Washington, DC
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)

From: <gnso-rpm-data-bounces at icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-data-bounces at icann.org>> on behalf of Kurt Pritz <kurt at kjpritz.com<mailto:kurt at kjpritz.com>>
Date: Monday, October 23, 2017 at 1:16 PM
To: Mary Wong <mary.wong at icann.org<mailto:mary.wong at icann.org>>
Cc: "gnso-rpm-data at icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-data at icann.org>" <gnso-rpm-data at icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-data at icann.org>>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-rpm-data] Proposed agenda and updated tables for the RPM Data Sub Team call this Friday

Hi Everyone:

Attached is my attempt at formulating the GNSO questions to registrants in a way to engender the responses and data we are seeking. (See question 6.) Is this what we had in mind?

I need some advice: The GNSO approved formulation calls for testing trademark claims in “different languages.” How many different languages do we think we will need to satisfy whoever it is that included that phrase in the questions?

Thoughts for constructing the survey, where we would want 1000+ respondents to be statistically meaningful:

1) I am against using existing stakeholder groups to take this survey out to their “members” as that will result in non-random samples and results that are otherwise skewed.

2) The most inexpensive way to conduct the survey is for registrars to reach out to their registrants. Registrars could offer discounts on domain renewals for taking the survey (and state the importance of participating). ICANN can fund the discounts and administrative costs. (I don’t know if registrars would do this but I am suggesting this.)

3) An outside survey firm could do this fairly cheaply. It might become expensive because so few people are registrants - they might have to contact 30 panelists or more to find one registrant.

Mary - I am sorry I did not put this directly into our wiki document. Would you mind doing that?

Comments welcome on the substance and the methodology & thanks,

Kurt

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-data/attachments/20171026/3dd0a467/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Data Request Table - Sub Team Use - 18 Oct 2017(MRGRev).docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 47979 bytes
Desc: Data Request Table - Sub Team Use - 18 Oct 2017(MRGRev).docx
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-data/attachments/20171026/3dd0a467/DataRequestTable-SubTeamUse-18Oct2017MRGRev-0001.docx>