[Gnso-rpm-data] [Ext] RE: REMINDER: Registry Survey - Beta Testers' Feedback (Review by COB Monday)
Ariel Liang
ariel.liang at icann.org
Wed Aug 29 03:14:49 UTC 2018
Dear All,
Not hearing further comments on the Registry survey and in the interest of time, staff are forwarding the testers’ feedback to Analysis Group, incorporating input from Kristine and Susan. For your record, please see the consolidated feedback forwarded by staff below.
We also followed up with Maxim and asked him whether he has any idea how to revise the pricing question (Q5 - bolded below) (Susan provided revision suggestion).
Kristine and Susan -- thank you again for your time and help!
Best Regards,
Mary, Julie, Ariel & Berry
==
General Comments:
* Do the following global change in all survey questions and answer options:
* Replace “geo TLD” with “GEO TLD” (capital GEO)
* Replace “community TLD” with “Community TLD” (capital C)
Q1: What is the name of your registry company/business?
* Replace “company/business” with “company/organization”
Q2: Approximately how many non-brand new gTLDs do you operate (not including new gTLDs for which you are a backend registry operator)? Please select from the following range:
* Revised the question: “For approximately how many non-brand new gTLDs do you have a signed Registry Agreement? Please select from the following range:”
Q3: How many TLDs do you operate that have registration eligibility restrictions? Please select from the following range:
* Revise the question: “Among the non-brand new gTLDs that you have a signed Registry Agreement, how many have registration eligibility restrictions? Please select from the following range:”
Q4: Among the non-brand new gTLDs that you operate, approximately what percentage fall into each of the following categories (indicate a number between 0 and 100).
* Revise the question: “Among the non-brand new gTLDs that you have a signed Registry Agreement, approximately how many fall into each of the following categories?”
Q5: Please provide your average pricing across all TLDS for: (If you prefer to not respond, you may skip this question)
* Revise the question: “Please provide your average pricing range across all TLDs for: (if you prefer to not respond, you may skip this question)”
Q6: Did you take any other steps to avoid overlap between premium pricing and Sunrise registrations for any of your TLDs? If yes, please explain. If you prefer to not respond, you may skip this question.
* Revise the question: “Did you take any other steps to avoid pricing trademarked names at a premium during the Sunrise period? If yes, please explain. If you prefer to not respond, you may skip this question.”
Q7: In your geo-TLDs or community TLDs, did you reserve names for reasons specific to your jurisdiction (e.g., political or legal, like “Police” for geo-TLDs)?
* Revise the question: “In your GEO TLDs or Community TLDs, did you reserve, or were you required to reserve names for reasons specific to your jurisdiction (e.g., administrative or legal, like “Police” for GEO TLDs)?”
Q8: Should the ICANN brand protection policies like Sunrise or Claims be altered to better accommodate restricted TLDs (like Community or Geo TLDs)?
* Revise the question: “Should the ICANN brand protection policies like Sunrise or Claims to be altered to better accommodate Community or GEO TLDs?”
Q9: Please share your thoughts on how these policies could be changed to better accommodate restricted TLDs. If you do not have any suggestions, you may skip this question.
* "Please share your thoughts on how these policies could be changed to better accommodate Community or GEO TLDs. If you do not have any suggestions, you may skip this question."
Q10: What impact do you think a period of 90 days will have on the following outcomes (relative to having no Sunrise period)? Please select all that apply.
* Replace “will” with “would” in the question wording.
Q11: Which of the following pre-general-availability programs that limit participants did you offer for any of your TLDs? Please note that you can select multiple options.
* Remove “that limit participants” from the question wording.
* Remove “that limit participants” from the answer option “Other pre-general-availability program that limited participation”; position this answer option as the second last option; add a text box next to this option to collect information about such a program, if any.
Q12: Did you receive any Sunrise registrations in any of your supported second-level internationalized domain names (SLD IDN) languages?
* Revise the question: "Did you receive any Sunrise registrations in any of your supported second-level internationalized domain names (SLD IDN) languages? An SLD IDN is a domain name in which the second-level contains non-ASCII characters."
Q13: Did you offer any special registration periods for internationalized domain names (IDN) apart from the Sunrise period?
* Revise the question: “Did you offer any special ‘internationalized domain names (IDN) only’ registration period apart from the Sunrise period?”
From: "Dorrain, Kristine" <dorraink at amazon.com>
Date: Tuesday, August 28, 2018 at 3:57 PM
To: Ariel Liang <ariel.liang at icann.org>, Susan Payne <susan.payne at valideus.com>, "gnso-rpm-data at icann.org" <gnso-rpm-data at icann.org>
Subject: RE: [Ext] RE: REMINDER: Registry Survey - Beta Testers' Feedback (Review by COB Monday)
I think I agreed with all the suggestions now…only outstanding one is the wording for the pricing question.
From: Ariel Liang [mailto:ariel.liang at icann.org]
Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2018 11:55 AM
To: Susan Payne <susan.payne at valideus.com>; Dorrain, Kristine <dorraink at amazon.com>; gnso-rpm-data at icann.org
Subject: Re: [Ext] RE: REMINDER: Registry Survey - Beta Testers' Feedback (Review by COB Monday)
Dear All,
Maxim responded to the follow-up questions from Kristine and Susan, and staff have noted them as comments in the Google Doc. He agreed with a couple of reworded questions suggested by Susan. He also proposed the rewording suggestion to a question:
Original: In your geo-TLDs or community TLDs, did you reserve names for reasons specific to your jurisdiction (e.g., political or legal, like “Police” for geo-TLDs)?
Reworded: In your GEO TLDs or Community TLDs, did you reserve, or were you required to reserve names for reasons specific to your jurisdiction (e.g., administrative or legal, like “Police” for GEO TLDs)?
Staff will wait till COB today (Tue, 28 Aug) to consolidate Data Sub Team’s feedback to testers’ comments.
Thank you!
Mary, Julie, Ariel & Berry
From: Ariel Liang <ariel.liang at icann.org<mailto:ariel.liang at icann.org>>
Date: Tuesday, August 28, 2018 at 12:47 PM
To: Susan Payne <susan.payne at valideus.com<mailto:susan.payne at valideus.com>>, Kristine Dorrain <dorraink at amazon.com<mailto:dorraink at amazon.com>>, "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: [Ext] RE: REMINDER: Registry Survey - Beta Testers' Feedback (Review by COB Monday)
Dear Kristine, Susan, and all,
Thank you, Kristine and Susan, for going through the extensive comments on the Google Doc and providing your input!
Other members in the Data Sub Team are also welcome to check the suggestions Kristine/Susan made on the Google Doc and provide your input: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1_Ik_0_DD359Q8ewqkamqCi5i1t-M-k652SUYkczbr6E/edit?usp=sharing [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_document_d_1-5FIk-5F0-5FDD359Q8ewqkamqCi5i1t-2DM-2Dk652SUYkczbr6E_edit-3Fusp-3Dsharing&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=dRzB-YypMqj9AZjlP_sZHORJtVF4M6AI0vip1lbQy10&m=LIVxfpYbEYCCDY20MMD7QXnOw7huINhk3zWbUQ4_P2w&s=dwgzH-sv56HgdpZ1iHW583MivGQT7_q147JLbt78qlU&e=>.
Staff noted that there are a couple of follow-up questions from Kristine/Susan to Maxim (the tester who provided most of the comments). We will contact him now and get back to the Data Sub Team on his response.
Due to need to launch the survey timely, please review the Google Doc at the earliest of your convenience. We plan to close the Google Doc for further comments shortly after Maxim provides his responses to the follow-up questions.
Thank you,
Mary, Julie, Ariel & Berry
From: Susan Payne <susan.payne at valideus.com<mailto:susan.payne at valideus.com>>
Date: Tuesday, August 28, 2018 at 5:52 AM
To: Kristine Dorrain <dorraink at amazon.com<mailto:dorraink at amazon.com>>, Ariel Liang <ariel.liang at icann.org<mailto:ariel.liang at icann.org>>, "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: [Ext] RE: REMINDER: Registry Survey - Beta Testers' Feedback (Review by COB Monday)
I’ve added a few comments in the GoogleDoc. Mostly agreeing with Kristine, plus a couple of additional suggestions.
On the pricing – would it work to suggest they give an average price range? This would address the tester’s concern that prices vary, although perhaps the responses then are really not useful?
Susan Payne
Head of Legal Policy | Valideus Ltd
E: susan.payne at valideus.com<mailto:susan.payne at valideus.com>
D: +44 20 7421 8255
T: +44 20 7421 8299
M: +44 7971 661175
From: Gnso-rpm-data [mailto:gnso-rpm-data-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Dorrain, Kristine via Gnso-rpm-data
Sent: 28 August 2018 00:41
To: Ariel Liang <ariel.liang at icann.org<mailto:ariel.liang at icann.org>>; gnso-rpm-data at icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-data at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-rpm-data] [Ext] RE: REMINDER: Registry Survey - Beta Testers' Feedback (Review by COB Monday)
OK, I’ve gone through and made my comments. I have proposed new text so I hope others will go in as well and check out my suggestions.
I don’t want to beat a dead horse, but some people on this list felt strongly that we needed to get some “average” pricing for TLDs. The problem, as Maxim points out, is that this is a massively error-prone question. For instance, a new gTLD operator who has 20 TLD and ran 3 registration phases and 6 pricing tiers has 360 prices to try to average. I am not sure what we’re getting from this question. I don’t want to mention it because I’ve been working hard to not re-litigate points I lost on, but I honestly don’t know how else to ask a pricing question. Thoughts from members who think it’s still an important question?
Thanks,
Kristine
From: Ariel Liang [mailto:ariel.liang at icann.org]
Sent: Monday, August 27, 2018 3:44 PM
To: Dorrain, Kristine <dorraink at amazon.com<mailto:dorraink at amazon.com>>; gnso-rpm-data at icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-data at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Ext] RE: REMINDER: Registry Survey - Beta Testers' Feedback (Review by COB Monday)
Thank you very much Kristine! We appreciate your time and review!
Best Regards,
Mary, Julie, Ariel & Berry
From: "Dorrain, Kristine" <dorraink at amazon.com<mailto:dorraink at amazon.com>>
Date: Monday, August 27, 2018 at 6:38 PM
To: Ariel Liang <ariel.liang at icann.org<mailto:ariel.liang at icann.org>>, "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: [Ext] RE: REMINDER: Registry Survey - Beta Testers' Feedback (Review by COB Monday)
Hi all, I hadn’t checked this list after noon on Friday so I didn’t see this. I’ll look at it next. Apologies for the delay.
Best,
Kristine
From: Gnso-rpm-data [mailto:gnso-rpm-data-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Ariel Liang
Sent: Monday, August 27, 2018 3:14 PM
To: gnso-rpm-data at icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-data at icann.org>
Subject: [Gnso-rpm-data] REMINDER: Registry Survey - Beta Testers' Feedback (Review by COB Monday)
Dear Kristine and all,
Staff have not heard any feedback from the Sub Team in respect to beta testers’ input for the Registry survey.
Since many of testers’ comments are substantive and about the questions themselves, we hesitate to move forward without the direction from the Sub Team.
As noted below, you may provide your comments in response to the testers’ feedback directly on the Google Doc. Please only focus on the comments in GREEN on page 1-10. Screenshots of the questions are also included in the Google Doc.
Thank you,
Mary, Julie, Ariel & Berry
From: Ariel Liang <ariel.liang at icann.org<mailto:ariel.liang at icann.org>>
Date: Friday, August 24, 2018 at 6:30 PM
To: "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: Registry Survey - Beta Testers' Feedback (Review by COB Monday)
Dear Data Sub Team members (and Kristine in particular),
Beta testers have reviewed the registry surveys. Test link: http://icannregistryoperators.cloudssi.com/login.html [icannregistryoperators.cloudssi.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__icannregistryoperators.cloudssi.com_login.html&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=dRzB-YypMqj9AZjlP_sZHORJtVF4M6AI0vip1lbQy10&m=GkEyIRUoUE6ErAJzxiDnvtNEwjUsdMeR0hSY1yjB_KA&s=bF78G9bZlOPPoZSOMtLM2n1dCE8M_41cbYZZc6Y0ux8&e=>
Since the beta testers’ feedback is quite extensive, and some comments are substantive, staff are sharing the Google Doc used by the beta testers for you to review their comments directly: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1_Ik_0_DD359Q8ewqkamqCi5i1t-M-k652SUYkczbr6E/edit?usp=sharing [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_document_d_1-5FIk-5F0-5FDD359Q8ewqkamqCi5i1t-2DM-2Dk652SUYkczbr6E_edit-3Fusp-3Dsharing&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=dRzB-YypMqj9AZjlP_sZHORJtVF4M6AI0vip1lbQy10&m=GkEyIRUoUE6ErAJzxiDnvtNEwjUsdMeR0hSY1yjB_KA&s=9zRBJ9HXsawFJc9mEPU0cAtlwnrwporLVEfPZLCxCuU&e=>
Please note:
* The bullet points in GREEN need Data Sub Team’s review/input. Please put your comment/input as new bullet points directly into the Google Doc (everyone can access via the “suggesting” mode).
* The bullet points highlighted in yellow are mostly technical issues, and they have been forwarded to AG directly to review.
* This survey has been programmed to use cookies to allow survey takers to return to their answers. While Lori suggested AG directing respondents in removing the survey cookie due to privacy concerns, AG did not implement it as the directions will differ depending on the respondent's computer/internet browser set-up and may be a bit technical. However, AG could add a note at the beginning and/or end of the survey with a link to a website that explains how to delete all cookies. In that implementation, AG would explain that deleting all cookies would remove their ability to re-visit their survey answers and also could sign them out of other websites that have sent them cookies. Please let us know if you have any opinion about adding that note to the survey introduction and/or to the survey exit pages.
* Due to the design of the survey and the platform used, a tester (including staff) is unable to see ALL questions due to the choices made in certain questions. Hence, the feedback is not all comprehensive. Staff are checking with AG and see whether there is a need to re-do the testing, or the feedback received now is sufficient.
* David McAuley, one of the beta testers, may include feedback in the Google Doc by tomorrow (Saturday). Staff don’t expect further comments from other beta testers.
By COB Monday, 27 August, please be so kind to write in the Google Doc your input to beta testers’ feedback. Analysis Group will implement the changes accordingly.
Thank you for your time and help!
Best Regards,
Mary, Julie, Ariel, and Berry
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-data/attachments/20180829/74643d6a/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Q1.png
Type: image/png
Size: 22843 bytes
Desc: Q1.png
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-data/attachments/20180829/74643d6a/Q1-0001.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Q2.png
Type: image/png
Size: 42223 bytes
Desc: Q2.png
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-data/attachments/20180829/74643d6a/Q2-0001.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Q3.png
Type: image/png
Size: 48287 bytes
Desc: Q3.png
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-data/attachments/20180829/74643d6a/Q3-0001.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Q4.png
Type: image/png
Size: 63888 bytes
Desc: Q4.png
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-data/attachments/20180829/74643d6a/Q4-0001.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Q5.png
Type: image/png
Size: 51585 bytes
Desc: Q5.png
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-data/attachments/20180829/74643d6a/Q5-0001.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Q6.png
Type: image/png
Size: 28068 bytes
Desc: Q6.png
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-data/attachments/20180829/74643d6a/Q6-0001.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Q7.png
Type: image/png
Size: 31763 bytes
Desc: Q7.png
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-data/attachments/20180829/74643d6a/Q7-0001.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Q8.png
Type: image/png
Size: 31009 bytes
Desc: Q8.png
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-data/attachments/20180829/74643d6a/Q8-0001.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Q9.png
Type: image/png
Size: 28015 bytes
Desc: Q9.png
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-data/attachments/20180829/74643d6a/Q9-0001.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Q10.png
Type: image/png
Size: 84890 bytes
Desc: Q10.png
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-data/attachments/20180829/74643d6a/Q10-0001.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Q11.png
Type: image/png
Size: 64307 bytes
Desc: Q11.png
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-data/attachments/20180829/74643d6a/Q11-0001.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Q12.png
Type: image/png
Size: 27198 bytes
Desc: Q12.png
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-data/attachments/20180829/74643d6a/Q12-0001.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Q13.png
Type: image/png
Size: 25967 bytes
Desc: Q13.png
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-data/attachments/20180829/74643d6a/Q13-0001.png>
More information about the Gnso-rpm-data
mailing list