[Gnso-rpm-data] Action Items from 09 February 2018 RPM Data Sub Team Call

Fri Feb 9 18:23:14 UTC 2018

All, 

Below are the action items and notes staff captured from the RPM Data Sub Team meeting today (09 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, 16 February at 1700 UTC.

Best Regards,

Julie

Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

Action Items:  
Section 5, Survey of Potential Registrants: Rebecca will revise the Google document based on the discussion on the call on 09 February and the notes (below).
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.

Notes:

1. Section 5, Survey of Potential Registrants – see: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1EUXC03ccuYhRMa_X4hDCPrq88KkF6qBRkL6sCcNutoI/edit?usp=sharing.

-- We should make sure that everyone who is in a category should be asked the same questions.

-- Make sure we are sending people down the right path.  How the question should be ask should be asked should be for the survey provider to weigh in on.  If someone received an objection then we ask them what they did -- this is the key question.  Important to get as much information as we can, with tick-box options.  Did they think it wasn't worth the time, were they unsure of their legal rights? 

-- Overarching question: How are we going to find registrants generally who registered, or those who got a notice?  How to identify that subset?

-- Two ways: Try and see if someone in the registry/registrar space would be willing to send out a survey -- category 2 (tried but weren't able with respect to at least one TLD); for category 3 -- there are significant survey panels for people doing internet things -- ask Survey Monkey to implement the survey or other large internet survey panel.

-- Does Survey Monkey rely on self-qualification of respondents?  Important to recognize in category 3 we are talking about potential consumers -- ask them, is this the type of thing you would buy?

--  In the RFP we also specified that the vendor should propose outreach strategy for reaching target audience, especially registrants / potential registrants who are not necessarily involved in ICANN community.

Show notice: [Explain in your own words what you understand the notice to mean] [Ask more comprehension questions: you may or may not have rights…]

-- Ask them to explain in their own words, but the survey provider might think that is too much.  We want the least guided response.

-- Showing the notice and getting feedback -- only suggestion is to switch the bracketed suggestions for the provider.  We want to ask comprehension questions.  Ideally we want them to say it in their own words, but worried we might not get the responses we need, prefer have tick boxes.  Given the guidance first and then the suggestion for how after.

What would you do if you received a notice with the following wording:

continue with the registration

not continue with the registration

consult someone else [who]

something else [explain]

[Consider some cells using examples: e.g., xerox.careers, apple.farms, chipotles.sucks—what would they do if they received notices?]

-- Engaging in hypotheticals can have value, but could be a slippery slope.  But, we are kind of asking people about the notice in a vacuum -- we don't know what they are trying to register.

-- chipotles.sucks -- could register as a criticism site; could work up some scenarios -- the untility of asking specifics is to have respondents apply the notice to a specific example.

-- xerox.careers for example -- hypothetically someone might be in the recruitment business or as a way to scam people -- not sure how we address that.

-- Nervous about the potential to misread the hypothetical data.

-- Danger that the respondent may not know the brand.

-- Whether a brand cares about being used in the survey it doesn't matter for our data gathering; but should use global well-known brands as examples.

-- Or, perhaps we could set out a "fake" company - saying it could be a competitor of major brand X?

-- Need to try and decide WHAT we are trying to solve for here.

-- Are there other ways to get at the same information without using hypotheticals?  

-- We don't know whether the notice can differentiate between false positive and true positives.  We have zero empirical evidence.  Could also make up a famous brand.

-- Good faith/bad faith is not as much a dichotomy as a spectrum.  Suggest that ask if people being part of a focus group -- if you are interested please offramp here.  But then funding becomes an issue.

-- The notice is one thing. Do you understand the notice? What is this notice say to you? etc...All of these questions about comprehension can be answered without any hypo.  The hypos require a lot of nuance that I think the average citizen is unaware of.

-- Concerned with hypotheticals is because they could be quite nuanced.  You could ask objective questions about the notice without the hypothetical.

-- Don't think our mandate is limited to whether the notice is terrifying people or not, but also can we improve it.  Need to know more about what it is doing.

-- One way to get at without the hypo:  After reading this notice, would you think about what you intended to do with the domain name before you decided if you wanted to proceed?  That goes to: what is the potential registrant thinking about rather than us guessing about what they're thinking about by looking at the the names they selected as "ok to proceed" in hypothetical.

-- Multiple questions are to avoid non-leading questions, that there are several different ways to ask the question, but we should ask the survey provider.

If you have registered a domain name, have you received any other kind of objection to your choice of a domain name? If yes, what was it? URS, UDRP, letter from a lawyer, lawsuit, don’t know/not sure, something else [fill in w/ survey expert consultation]

Did you keep the domain name after the objection? [Yes/no/explain]

Have you received such a notice on more than one occasion?

-- Move that up front, but for those people who have registered -- categories 2 and 3.  Precedes I am going to show you the claims notice, then go to the claims notice.

-- There are overlapping budgets so we should consider the questions as potentially overlapping.

2. RFP Status:

--- Responses from 6 vendors.

-- 12 February is the deadline for vendors to express interest.

-- That will be followed by a period during which the vendors can ask questions.

-- The RFP will close on 09 March.  See the timeline: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/rfps-en 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-data/attachments/20180209/69b05c36/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/20180209/69b05c36/smime-0001.p7s>