[Gnso-rpm-data] Action Items from 02 February 2018 RPM Data Sub Team Call

Fri Feb 2 22:07:25 UTC 2018

All, 

Below are the action items and notes staff captured from the RPM Data Sub Team meeting today (02 February 2018).  The notes from the call are posted to the Sub Team wiki space, together with the call recording, transcript and Adobe Connect chat and attendance records.

Note also that the next call will be on Friday, 09 February at 1700 UTC.

Best Regards,

Julie

Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

Action Items:  
Section 4, Survey of Registrants: Staff will update the Google document based on the discussion on the call on 02 February.
Section 3, Survey of TM and Brand Owners: Sub Team members should review and comment on the list concerning the final anecdotal and data questions for the question “What is the evidence of harm under the existing [exact match] system?”, page 22-23 at https://docs.google.com/document/d/1EUXC03ccuYhRMa_X4hDCPrq88KkF6qBRkL6sCcNutoI/edit?usp=sharing. 

Notes:

1. Update on the RFP -- Goal is to complete the table by 19 February (staff recommendation).

2. Commence discussion on Section 4 (Registrants):

Google Doc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1EUXC03ccuYhRMa_X4hDCPrq88KkF6qBRkL6sCcNutoI/edit?usp=sharing

General Points (Add to “General Recommendations” section of the table:

-- We are surveying registrants: experience with conducting surveys when surveying this type of audience we should keep the survey short and keep away from open-ended questions and try to use multiple choice questions.  Decide whether to come up with the questions ourselves, or let the provider do it? Less sophisticated audience.  Discussion might also inform the selection of the survey provider.

-- Consider how we get our registrants -- one is engage the survey company; an alternative would be to survey Registrars' customers, though that might be tricky.  Might to talk about the direction we want to give to the survey provider on how to reach registrants.

-- Trying to keep costs down and a cost driver is open-ended questions since someone has to categorize them.

Questions:

Have you ever registered a domain name, if the answer is "no" then terminate the survey

-- Deleted because a number of people have tried to register but couldn't (not a potential registrant).  

-- Could include: "Have you registered?  If not, why?" If to the population in general they might ask "what is a domain name?"  We want to get into to it for why they haven't registered, but we aren't at the point of a domain name survey.

-- Or, does this fit into the potential registrant section, but don't want to count people twice.  Maybe if you answer "yes" you keep going, if "no" then you go to the survey of potential registrants.

-- Could put it in a note to the survey provider: those who have registered, those who have tried but failed for whatever reason, and those who are interested but haven't tried.  

Have you received any kind of objection to your choice of a domain name?  If so what type?

-- Will garner information we won't need and is likely to turn off the respondent.

-- Leave a lot of leeway to the survey provider.

-- Somehow signal that the best way to ascertain whether they received an official trademark claims notice is to have it direct to a standard notice and ask if that is what they received.  Point to "Official Trademark Claims Notice".

-- Scan down in the questions and note that we ask "if you received a notice that said..." Then add, "Yes, no, or not sure".  or: "Which of the following did you receive: a) Trademark Claims Notice from Registrar, b) cease and desist letter from another party, c) other type of objection (if so, Explain ____)"? Cover the possibilities in the multiple choice questions.  Ask the survey provider how we best funnel people.

-- If we ask something really open-ended that could capture all kinds of steps in the process, such as a cease-and-desist letter.  In this question that is what we are trying to elicit -- did you get a claims notice even if you didn't know what it was.  Don't want to get people who got cease-and-desist letters.

-- Undecided if we need to ask this question, and ask the survey provider which they think is the best approach.

When you registered names in any of the new top-level domains, did you receive a notice that stated...  

-- Then if "no" terminate the survey?   If yes, then go to the comprehensive questions.  Or if no, continue to get hypothetical information -- if they got a notice, would they understand it.   If you receive a notice that looked like this, what would you do about it.  If you abandoned you registration why did you -- skip ahead to other questions.  These people that have registered, they have or haven't abandoned, two paths: haven't received a claims notice but we want to ask how they would react if the receive on, 2) abandonment that don't apply to trademark claims but apply to other parts of the survey.   Once we have someone in the survey we want data about claims notice but behaviors that might apply to other transactions.  Capture all the experience -- word it broadly enough to get a good collective experience.

-- Gateway Question #1: Have you applied to register a New gTLD Domain Name?  If No: Go to Potential Registrants no Application Qs -- If Yes: Go to Gateway Question #2: Have you registered a New gTLD Domain Name?  If No: Go to Potential Registrants but No Registration Qs -- If Yes: Go to Registrants Qs. 

-- Charter questions ask about Trademark Claims, but also general abandonment.  When we have a registrant and we ask them if they registered, we also ask if they have registrations that you weren't granted  take them through the potential registrant questions.

-- Flow from Section 4 into Section 5.

-- This part of the survey is where you succeeded, and this part is about where you didn't.

-- Suggestion: Do continue with these questions as they are still valid, make sure the questions are clear.  Let the survey provider decide where we off ramp or on ramp -- or not "off ramp" but being directed to Qus that apply.

These next questions should be asked of people who said they did receive an objection...

-- Very open ended -- first try to capture information in multiple-choice questions and then proceed to open-ended questions.

-- Or, start open-ended and avoid leading people to answer in a certain way.  Given them a chance to say what they would in their own words and then given them multiple choice.  Include -- "did you proceed or not" as an off ramp. 

-- Or, have multiple choice with "other" included.  Also, with open-ended it might be hard to categorize the responses.

-- Or, provide "other" with explanation, but also specific multiple choice so that metrics can be obtained.

 -- Give them a chance to say what actually happened.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-data/attachments/20180202/cb26ffee/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4630 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-data/attachments/20180202/cb26ffee/smime-0001.p7s>