[Gnso-rpm-data] Action Items from 19 January 2018 RPM Data Sub Team Call

Fri Jan 19 18:53:50 UTC 2018

All, 

Below are the action items and notes staff captured from the RPM Data Sub Team meeting today (19 January 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, 26 January at 1700 UTC.

Best Regards,

Julie

Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

Action Items:  

Section 2, Survey of Registrars: Staff will update the Google document based on the discussion on the call on 19 January.
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. 
Sections 4, 5, & 6: These sections have yet to be discussed, but Kurt will provide by 1800 UTC (1000 PST) Monday, 22 January, suggested brief paragraphs for purposes of publication in the draft document to go out with the RFP.
Survey Question Table for RFP: Sub Team members will complete a review of the draft table by 1800 UTC (1000 PST) Tuesday, 23 January and staff will compile as a clean PDF for the RFP.

Notes:

1. Section 2, Registrars, Page 9, https://docs.google.com/document/d/1EUXC03ccuYhRMa_X4hDCPrq88KkF6qBRkL6sCcNutoI/edit?usp=sharing

In the relevant data question: Change to: "...should the Registry release it -- what Registry..." should be "Registrar".

Question 4: 

Column three, anecdotal questions:

"Have you had feedback from your customers with registry reserved names -- positive or negative?

-- Addition: “Examples: Brand owners that couldn't get their brand due to reserved names list OR registrants that didn't get a name they wanted because the names was "protectively reserved" for a brand.”  

When name collision names were released from reservation, trademark owners with a mark in the TMCH were given a right of first refusal.  What was your experience of this? 

-- Change to "Do you have any experience of this, if so, what went well? Were there any technical or other issues?"

When name collision names were released from reservation, trademark owners with a mark in the TMCH were given a right of first refusal.  What was your experience of this, what went well? Were there any technical or other issues? 

-- Combine with the following question and reduce to one question.

If registry reserved names were to be offered first to trademark owners with a mark in the TMCH, what would be the best way to do this from your perspective as a registrar?  A second Sunrise? A right of first refusal?  What of any concerns would this raise for you as a registrar? 

-- Addition: “What if any technical issues need to be taken into account?”

-- Rewrite:  "One of the questions we’ve been asked to address is should registry reserved names be offered first to trademark owners with a mark in the TMCH and what would be the best way to do this?"

Discussion:

-- Make sure that the focus is the impact on brands.  How do we get to the reason that the name was a problem because it was someone's brand.

-- Wondering if this is how data is kept?  Is the domain provider going to know that this was a brand issue?  Looking for situations where brand owner couldn't get their name since it was on the reserved list or registrants couldn't get it because it was a brand.

-- Add: "What would be the consequences to you if the registry were to release the reserved name?" -- Disagree: want to collect data. Trying to find out what is the problem.

Question 5:

Column three, anecdotal questions, first question:

-- Delete, "From your experience as a registrar..."

-- Should probably be split into two questions.

-- Add, “Does having two models make it difficult for you?” to try to get at the question of whether there is a third option.

-- These questions should come before the questions about reserved names -- so Question 5 before Question 4?  If they didn't do the Sunrise they wouldn't be answering these questions.

Column four, Data question: 

-- Add: “Did you encounter a Sunrise longer than 30 or 60 days?”

2. RFP Status and Actions:

-- Release early.  Include the table in draft form and notice of such would be released to the full WG around January 22nd or so.  Release the RFP a week early, the week starting 29 January.

-- Document is a sample document that the survey providers can refer to.  Doesn't have to be final.

-- Inputs by 1800 UTC Tuesday, 23 January.  A clean version will be included in the RFP. 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-data/attachments/20180119/26e388f0/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/20180119/26e388f0/smime-0001.p7s>