[Gnso-rpm-data] Please postpone today's call

Wed Jun 6 16:26:21 UTC 2018

Hi everyone,

Apologies for adding to the exchange, and please understand that I am still getting up to speed (!).

I can certainly appreciate the concerns about timing being raised by subteam members.  I also understand there is some pressure on the deliverables (both from the surveys, and full WG reporting).

Mindful of these competing tensions – and with my own reading of the tea leaves that there has already been some discussion about the questions at the subteam level that has been taken up by the Analysis Group – perhaps the purpose of the calls today and tomorrow should be to have Analysis Group present their reasons for the proposed edits to the surveys, and to seek feedback from the subteam during the call with a view to finalizing the surveys (which will pass through to the full WG in any event).

I hope I am not adding confusion, but thought I would add what I hope is a way forward presently.

Brian

From: Gnso-rpm-data [mailto:gnso-rpm-data-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Julie Hedlund
Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2018 6:04 PM
To: Dorrain, Kristine; Lori Schulman; Susan Payne; gnso-rpm-data at icann.org
Subject: Re: [Gnso-rpm-data] Please postpone today's call

Hi Susan, Lori, and Kristine (and Sub Team members),

Thank you for your request and perhaps staff can provide some further explanation for why we are pressed for time.  But first, staff should clarify that it was not expected that the Sub Team members would have read through and analyzed all of the materials from Analysis Group by today’s meeting.  Given that the deadline for Analysis Group to provide the draft surveys was to be 05 June, that timeline in any case would not have provided enough time for the Sub Team members to review all of the materials.  Instead, it was the staff’s understanding that the purpose of the calls today and tomorrow was to review the draft surveys and address the comments and questions from Analysis Group during the call.

Second, it is the timeline, which is part of the RFP, that is driving this work.  According to the timeline the Sub Team must provide its feedback to Analysis Group by this Friday, in order for Analysis Group to provide the final surveys to the WG by next Wednesday, 13 June, and then for Analysis Group to be able to start sending the surveys by 20 June.  If we slip even by a few days we will not be able to meet the deadline of getting the surveys out by the end of the month.  If we don't get the surveys out by the end of the month (which is predicated on AG getting the feedback this week), we won't get the results back by August and a report by September at the latest to review - which pushes out the development of initial recommendations.

We do realize the challenges in this process and staff will do everything possible to help the review of the draft surveys go as smoothly as possible.  However, given that today’s call is already scheduled with many Sub Team members expecting to attend, staff would suggest that the Sub Team can use the call as noted above to review the draft surveys and work with Analysis Group to address the questions.  The work can continue on tomorrow’s call if needed.  Following both calls staff will send the comments to the Sub Team to review before they are sent to Analysis Group on Friday.

Kind regards,
Mary, Ariel, Berry, and Julie

From: Gnso-rpm-data <gnso-rpm-data-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of "Dorrain, Kristine via Gnso-rpm-data" <gnso-rpm-data at icann.org>
Reply-To: "Dorrain, Kristine" <dorraink at amazon.com>
Date: Wednesday, June 6, 2018 at 11:05 AM
To: Lori Schulman <lschulman at inta.org>, Susan Payne <susan.payne at valideus.com>, Ariel Liang <ariel.liang at icann.org>, "gnso-rpm-data at icann.org" <gnso-rpm-data at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-rpm-data] Please postpone today's call

Hi everyone,

I also support postponing the call.  As I am one of the west-coasters, I just came in to the email which I cannot get through before our scheduled call today, particularly in light of the RySG call this morning.

I don’t think this time will be well-used if we’re looking at the docs together for the first time.

Best,

Kristine

From: Gnso-rpm-data [mailto:gnso-rpm-data-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Lori Schulman
Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2018 7:37 AM
To: Susan Payne <susan.payne at valideus.com>; Ariel Liang <ariel.liang at icann.org>; gnso-rpm-data at icann.org
Subject: Re: [Gnso-rpm-data] Please postpone today's call

Dear All,

I echo Susan’s concerns.   I will not be making the call this afternoon as I believe that we cannot possibly be prepared.  It’s 10:30 am my time and I cannot get through this by 1 pm given my other priorities at the moment.  I strongly believe that we need a “rethink” on how we will proceed and do plan on attending tomorrow’s call in which  have held slot.

Lori

Lori S. Schulman
Senior Director, Internet Policy
International Trademark Association (INTA)
+1-202-704-0408, Skype: lsschulman

From: Gnso-rpm-data [mailto:gnso-rpm-data-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Susan Payne
Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2018 10:29 AM
To: Ariel Liang <ariel.liang at icann.org<mailto:ariel.liang at icann.org>>; gnso-rpm-data at icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-data at icann.org>
Subject: [Gnso-rpm-data] Please postpone today's call
Importance: High

All

Apologies in advance for being blunt.  I am not seeking to cast blame on anyone, but I am extremely concerned that this exercise is being pushed forward with such haste.  It is completely unreasonable and unrealistic to expect us all to have read all these documents, considered the extensive redlines and comments, and be in a position to discuss this meaningfully in the space of 4 hours from them landing in our Inboxes.  Half of our subgroup are on the US West Coast – they are only just waking up so they don’t even get that long!  I may have the advantage of this being the middle of my working day, but I still have multiple other calls on my time this afternoon.  The meeting later this afternoon was set when we were due to receive these documents on Tuesday.  Frankly, even that was a ludicrously short turn-around time, but that’s academic, since we didn’t receive the documents on Tuesday (and just to be clear, I’m not blaming AG for missing the deadline – they also have been given a wholly unrealistic timeline).

I know that there is pressure to move this survey exercise along.  I’ve been vocal myself about concerns on the WG timeline, but those concerns have been as much about the need to be realistic about what tasks should be undertaken and how long they will take.  The RFP exercise to appoint AG has taken months (which is no surprise to me).  It’s unfair and false economy to try to make up the time by truncating the preparatory work on the actual surveys.  It’s wholly unreasonable to allow only 2-3 weeks for AG to review the initial input from the Subteam, create surveys, discuss and finalise with the Subteam, identify survey respondents, report to the full WG, and get these surveys deployed.     We seem to be working towards a completely arbitrary date for reporting to the full WG – what is the reason for this 13 June deadline?  We aren’t discussing on a WG call before, or during Panama, so what’s the justification for this?

Whilst I have strongly questioned the value of this whole exercise from the outset, I, and the others on this subgroup, have also made a commitment to do what we can to try to ensure that some useful information will be generated.  Without adequate consideration and input into the surveys before they are launched we are setting this whole exercise up for failure, which will be a shameful waste of the time spent to date and ICANN’s financial resources.

Susan Payne
Head of Legal Policy | Valideus Ltd

E: susan.payne at valideus.com<mailto:susan.payne at valideus.com>
D: +44 20 7421 8255
T: +44 20 7421 8299
M: +44 7971 661175

From: Gnso-rpm-data [mailto:gnso-rpm-data-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Ariel Liang
Sent: 06 June 2018 14:00
To: gnso-rpm-data at icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-data at icann.org>
Subject: [Gnso-rpm-data] Proposed Sunrise & Claims Survey Questions

Dear Data Sub Team Members,

In preparation for today’s meeting at 17:00 UTC, please find attached the redline and clean versions of the proposed Sunrise & Claims survey questions from the Analysis Group. Kindly see below the text provided by the Analysis Group to accompany the files. Apologies for the short time window for circulating the proposed survey questions, and we hope you will have a chance to review them prior to the call.

Please see the proposed agenda for today’s meeting below:
1. Review agenda
2. Discussion of the proposed survey questions and suggested changes by Analysis Group
3. AOB

All files attached to this email are also uploaded on the agenda wiki page here: https://community.icann.org/x/FysFBQ [community.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_FysFBQ&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=adDIs0WEx_lLwFfrsdovxTYY8GkRHo5ibc8SR3Npdh8&m=f_p2z3yVnZz56CJXL83s09nq_fCSBSa4bGZKmtsQsh4&s=HhiUKwCMBsxhqHbaPyY7duuR3T5HXFUXemj9WEkF_pU&e=>

Best Regards,
Mary, Julie, Ariel, and Berry

---------- Text from Analysis Group --------

Dear All,

Attached please find our suggested revisions to the survey questions for each target group of the RPM survey (and, for reference, the Word version of the appendix to the RFP). We copied the questions from the RFP appendix into a Word document to follow a questionnaire format and have suggested edits to the survey in redline. We have also attached a clean version of each revised document. It may be easiest to review the clean version of our documents next to the RFP appendix, as the versions with tracked changes can be more difficult to follow. Please note that there may be minor formatting inconsistencies across the documents, as well as some minor differences in similar questions. We will clean these up this week, but wanted to provide you with the revised questions as soon as possible.

As we discussed last week, the goal of our proposed edits is to limit the length of the survey while still allowing the capture of as much information as possible. To the extent possible, we converted open-ended questions to multiple choice. In some instances, we would like to request assistance with defining the multiple choice answers. In those instances, we have placed the request in double square brackets and highlighted the text in yellow. For some "anecdotal" questions, we could not think of an easy or clear way to translate the questions into closed-end responses. In those cases, we will allow open-text responses (marked by "open text field" responses).

We removed some questions from several of the surveys, but believe more should still be removed from both the registry and trademark holder surveys. We have noted this in the relevant Word documents, and are hoping you can assist us in identifying several questions in each survey to remove.

Best,
Stacey and Greg

Stacey Chan, Ph.D. | Manager
Analysis Group, Inc. | Economic, Financial, and Strategy Consulting
1900 16th Street, Suite 1100, Denver, CO 80202
720-963-5307 (direct) | 720-963-5300 (main)
stacey.chan at analysisgroup.com<mailto:stacey.chan at analysisgroup.com> l www.analysisgroup.com [analysisgroup.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.analysisgroup.com&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=adDIs0WEx_lLwFfrsdovxTYY8GkRHo5ibc8SR3Npdh8&m=f_p2z3yVnZz56CJXL83s09nq_fCSBSa4bGZKmtsQsh4&s=i9XuXAfdV9q4Eka9nPKhHyrfCSoG_LSOAm3shAeHSts&e=>

World Intellectual Property Organization Disclaimer: This electronic message may contain privileged, confidential and copyright protected information. If you have received this e-mail by mistake, please immediately notify the sender and delete this e-mail and all its attachments. Please ensure all e-mail attachments are scanned for viruses prior to opening or using.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-data/attachments/20180606/be63df14/attachment-0001.html>