[Gnso-rpm-data] Inquiry re: Next Meeting per Action Items from 23 February 2018 RPM Data Sub Team Call

Sun Feb 25 14:27:24 UTC 2018

*__X__*Meet next Friday, 02 March at 1700 UTC -- I support this time and 
will try to participate. I'll be on Amtrak... and hoping for 
connectivity coming back from Durham, NC.

Best, Kathy

On 2/23/2018 5:04 PM, Cyntia King wrote:
>
> *__X__*Meet next Friday, 02 March at 1700 UTC
>
> *Cyntia King*
>
> E:  cking at modernip
>
> O:  +1 81-ModernIP
>
> C:  +1 818.209.6088
>
> MIP Composite (Email)
>
> *From:*Gnso-rpm-data [mailto:gnso-rpm-data-bounces at icann.org] *On 
> Behalf Of *Julie Hedlund
> *Sent:* Friday, February 23, 2018 3:06 PM
> *To:* gnso-rpm-data at icann.org
> *Subject:* [Gnso-rpm-data] Inquiry re: Next Meeting per Action Items 
> from 23 February 2018 RPM Data Sub Team Call
>
> All,
>
> Per this action item: /Staff to send a note to the list asking whether 
> to hold a meeting next Friday, or arranging a meeting in ICANN61/, 
> please indicate below whether you wish to hold a meeting next Friday, 
> 02 March, at the usual time of 1700 UTC and/or a working session at 
> ICANN61. Note that separately you will receive a poll asking about 
> your attendance for the meetings during ICANN61.  The topic of the 
> meeting would be the continued discussion of the additional RPMs.
>
> ____ Meet next Friday, 02 March at 1700 UTC
>
> ____ Meet at ICANN61 using one of the 4 public sessions (the session 
> description would specifically note that this is a working session)
>
> Thank you for your assistance.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Julie
>
> *From: *Gnso-rpm-data <gnso-rpm-data-bounces at icann.org 
> <mailto:gnso-rpm-data-bounces at icann.org>> on behalf of Julie Hedlund 
> <julie.hedlund at icann.org <mailto:julie.hedlund at icann.org>>
> *Date: *Friday, February 23, 2018 at 1:38 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: *[Gnso-rpm-data] Action Items from 23 February 2018 RPM Data 
> Sub Team Call
>
> All,
>
> Below are the action items and notes staff captured from the RPM Data 
> Sub Team meeting today (23 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.
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Julie
>
> Julie Hedlund, Policy Director
>
> **
>
> *Action Items:*
>
>  1. Data Table:
>      1. Michael to email the group his suggestions for deleting
>         duplication on page 26, and make the changes to the Google Doc
>         (DONE).
>      2. Lori/Kathy to draft a note regarding the public interest group
>         section to be included in the data table.
>      3. Additional RPMs: 1) Add questions 4 and 5 to the Data Table if
>         they are not already covered. 2) Staff to color code the
>         additional RPMs document and indicate what questions went onto
>         the survey table, what did not.
>      4. Staff will update the Data Table based on the above input and
>         the actions from the discussion during the meeting, send the
>         Data Table to the full Working Group, and send it to ICANN
>         Procurement staff.
>  2. Staff to send a note to the list asking whether to hold a meeting
>     next Friday, or arranging a meeting in ICANN61
>
> *Notes:*
>
> 1. Discussion of the remaining part of the Data Table
>
> -- Review of the Section 4 (Registrant Questions) See: 
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1EUXC03ccuYhRMa_X4hDCPrq88KkF6qBRkL6sCcNutoI/edit?usp=sharing
>
> /If you attempted to register a domain name, did you receive an 
> objection based on trademark to your choice of domain name?.../
>
> Action: Fine to add, but delete from "based on..." and add "If you 
> received an objection, what was the basis?"
>
> /To identify people who may not know what the specific name of the 
> process they triggered was..." /
>
> Actions: Ask “Did you receive a warning or notice of possible 
> trademark conflict?”  These are guidance for the survey provider to 
> provide “cues” for the respondents.
>
> Discussion:
>
> -- Put this in the guidance for the survey provider.
>
> -- Should we keep this narrow, focusing on trademark claims and 
> Sunrise?  I think objection, to a registrant -- just say "did you 
> receive this notice" and keep the exact words of the notice in. Unless 
> we put this more vague question at the end.
>
> -- Assuming we are looking for who received a claims notice and what 
> did they do. "objection" could mean all sorts of things.  We want to 
> find out did they receive a claims notice and what they did in response.
>
> -- Disagree.  Want to know about objections.  Asking about the notice 
> in column three, but there could be a wide variety of objections.
>
> -- Think we have a disagreement on methodology.  Don't think we should 
> put the text of the notice to them, but get them thinking about the 
> context. The surveyor can help finalize this.  Did you receive this 
> before you completed the registration and we can ask what happened.  
> If you asked if you received the notice then they might not be able to 
> tell if the wording is the same.  Let them think about it and their 
> answers may reveal what they received.
>
> -- Agree with not using the word objection.  Some people may not 
> understand what an objection or trademark notice is.  Ask them 
> questions about the notice and find out if they misperceived the 
> notice, or even knew if it was an objection.
>
> -- Page 26: Rather than "did you receive an objection" did you receive 
> a warning notice. It is outside scope to start asking questions about 
> post registration whether they got a cease and desist letter. I think 
> we are trying to determine if they triggered a notice, did they 
> understand it, what did they do.
>
> -- Be careful about using “objection”, “protest”, or “challenge” since 
> that hasn't happened yet.  The rights holder hasn't made the objection.
>
> -- Go to page 29 -- captures where we could come out.  Three buckets 
> of people.  Ask all of the questions about the language of the claims 
> notice.  Realize that people don't just sit in one of these buckets.  
> We aren't the survey operators, we are trying to explain what we are 
> seeking.
>
> -- Didn't want to lose potential registrants who tried to register but 
> couldn't get through.  Did they receive a warning or notice of 
> possible trademark conflict.
>
> -- Left with whether or not we want to ask about other RPMs.  Sounds 
> like keeping it to trademark and Sunrise.
>
> -- At some point we do need to ask if what they received was a 
> Trademark Claims Notice or something else.
>
> -- Notes for survey provider: preparing the survey people for the 
> different kinds of things they might want to elicit.  Prepare the 
> respondents.  The option that this is the type of objection/notice I 
> received, or other.  Include "cues".
>
> Section 6:
>
> Actions:
>
> -- Lori/Kathy to draft a note regarding the public interest group 
> section to be included in the data table.
>
> -- Add questions 4 and 5 if they are not already covered.
>
> Discussion:
>
> -- Have done some thinking about it.
>
> -- Don't understand why we are doing a separate set of questions for 
> public interest groups and trade associations.
>
> -- The thinking was that we wanted to capture as many groups as 
> possible.  One of the challenges in looking at the table, except for 
> very large non-profits most would not be able to answer the 
> questions.  It would depend on who we reached out to.  So, unless we 
> reach out to very large non-profits (such as Red Cross, March of 
> Dimes, YMCA, etc.) you aren't going to get answers to the questions.
>
> -- Problematic that we would be asking different questions of that 
> group since we wouldn't be able to compare to the rest of the groups.
>
> -- Include a note to the survey provider that NGOs may need a bit more 
> coaching and background. So they can help us identify who could be 
> reached for the survey. Teese out a classification of users among the 
> public interest groups.
>
> -- Another General Note to keep the inconsistency in the Claims 
> Notices, Trademark Notification, NORNs.
>
> -- Redundancy in Section 3, page 21, third bullet point in 3rd column; 
> 4th column, primary method. Michael to email the group about his 
> suggestions and make the change to the Google Doc
>
> 2. Check the Additional Marketplace RPMs and see whether Qs fall 
> within scope:
>
> Action: Add questions 4 and 5 to the Data Table
>
> -- Question 1 and 3 do not belong to the survey (out of scope)
>
> -- Question 4
>
> * Could possibly ask the ROs, but not in the survey as it is not 
> related Sunrise and Trademark Claims
>
> * These questions have impact on Sunrise and Trademark Claims. Two for 
> ROs, one for registrar, and one for TM owners. Make sense to tag these 
> onto the survey
>
> * GNSO Council did not give sign off to add these questions from 
> additional marketplace RPMs.
>
> * Questions can only be added if it is specifically in scope for the 
> RFP, fitting into the Sunrise and Trademark Claims question table.
>
> * ACTION: Question 4 to add to the TM owner section, related to Sunrise
>
> -- Question 5
>
> * It is more germane
>
> * ACTION: Within scope, and can be added to the table, related to 
> Trademark Claims, aim at ROs and Registrars
>
> -- No other questions in the additional RPMs need to be included in 
> the survey?
>
> -- No more time for this survey to go through the additional RPMs 
> thoroughly. In early stages of the PDP, questions were sent to ROs 
> that ran these additional RPMs. Donuts and one/two others provided 
> feedback.
>
> -- ACTION: Staff to color code the additional RPMs document and 
> indicate what questions went onto the survey table, what did not.
>
> -- Timing of future meeting. ICANN61 Planning / repurposing a session 
> for the Data Sub Team?
>
> -- Participation in ICANN61
>
> * Susan, Kristin
>
> * Kurt (leaving Wed AM)
>
> * Michael (remote participation)
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gnso-rpm-data mailing list
> Gnso-rpm-data at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-data

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-data/attachments/20180225/39e5c802/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/png
Size: 5425 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-data/attachments/20180225/39e5c802/attachment-0001.png>