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

Mon Feb 26 05:11:31 UTC 2018

Please see below. I am for Friday, but we should still meet at ICANN.

At the end of the last session we discussed this and I (not jokingly) suggested “pirate meeting." If you take out the participation of the working group chairs there are only 5 or 6 of us. Why cannot we meet over lunch or in the bar at sometime. 

I suggest we meet in the restaurant or bar for lunch coffee or drinks and go through a pre-developed  agenda. We don”t have the need for recording etc, just an informal venue where we might be effective. 

What do you think?

Kurt

> On Feb 23, 2018, at 1:06 PM, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund at icann.org> wrote:
> 
> 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.
>  
> __X__ 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:  
> Data Table:
> Michael to email the group his suggestions for deleting duplication on page 26, and make the changes to the Google Doc (DONE).
> Lori/Kathy to draft a note regarding the public interest group section to be included in the data table.
> 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.
> 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.
> 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 <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 <mailto:Gnso-rpm-data at icann.org>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-data <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/d6946d94/attachment-0001.html>