[Gnso-rpm-data] Actions & Notes: RPM Data Sub Team 13 June 2018

[Ariel Liang]

Dear All,

Please see below the action items and notes captured by staff from the Data Sub Team call held on 13 June 2018 (1600 UTC).  Staff have posted to the wiki space the action items and notes.  Please note that these will be high-level notes and are not meant as a substitute for the transcript or recording. The recording, AC chat, and attendance records are posted on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/x/YoMpBQ

Please note that the staff action items have been completed (see below).

Best Regards,
Ariel

Ariel Xinyue Liang
Policy Analyst | Washington, DC
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)

----------------
ACTION ITEMS

  *   Staff to check which Q4 sub question(s) address the same intent as Q12. (DONE)
     *   Based on notes, Q4m seems to have similar intent as Q12. The Sub Team want to know the benefits and disadvantages if registries provider either the Claims Period or Sunrise Period, instead of both. AG would word this question similarly to Q4k.
  *   Staff to check the notes related to the grid questions and see what the conclusion/outcome was. (DONE)
     *   Based on notes, Sub Team suggested that similar grid questions asked to ROs should be asked to Registrars. The grid questions should also leave some open-ended options for respondents to provide narrative responses. The grid questions in the RO survey are Q16/Q17, as well as Q4i/Q4j in the registrar survey. AG would like to request the Sub Team to provide suggestions and include additional options to Q16/Q17 to the Google Doc. AG could maintain the grid format of the current questions, but to also include a separate question to elicit anecdotal responses.
  *   Staff to circulate Berry’s information about the domain name registration process. (DONE)
     *   Information from Berry: Registrant enters the domain at the Registrar where it is queried as to whether its available for registration. If the potential Registrant places the domain in the cart with intent of registering it, the Registry will also check if it appears on the Domain Names List (DNL).  If it does, the Registry sends a CNIS code to the Registrar that notifies the Registrant of the claims notice.  If registered, the Registrar returns a registration confirmation to the TMCH. This is reference to the TMCH Technical Specification as documented on IETF.
  *   Kristine to review the grid questions (Q16/Q17 in RO survey, Q4i/Q4j and Q13/Q14 in registrar survey) and propose ideas to revise the grid.

NOTES
Registrar Survey
Q12

  *   A sub question in Q4 captures the intent of this one, asking if there should be either sunrise or claims rather than both. Move that sub question down and replace Q12 with it?
  *   ACTION ITEM: Staff to check which Q4 sub question(s) address the same intent.
  *   Staff Comment: Based on notes, Q4m seems to have similar intent as Q12. The Sub Team want to know the benefits and disadvantages if registries provider either the Claims Period or Sunrise Period, instead of both. AG would word this question similarly to Q4k.

Q13/Q14

  *   There are similar questions discussed in the Registry survey. Do these questions capture the original intent?
  *   The grid format would need to be extrapolated across all the surveys.
  *   ACTION ITEM: Staff to check the notes related to the grid questions and see what the conclusion/outcome was.
  *   Staff Comment: Based on notes, Sub Team suggested that similar grid questions asked to ROs should be asked to Registrars. The grid questions should also leave some open-ended options for respondents to provide narrative responses. The grid questions in the RO survey are Q16/Q17, as well as Q4i/Q4j in the registrar survey. AG would like to request the Sub Team to provide suggestions and include additional options to Q16/Q17 to the Google Doc. AG could maintain the grid format of the current questions, but to also include a separate question to elicit anecdotal responses.
  *   ACTION ITEM: Kristine to review the grid questions (Q16/Q17 in RO survey, Q4i/Q4j and Q13/Q14 in registrar survey) and propose ideas to revise the grid.

Q15

  *   The original questions are to understand whether there is any impact to abandonment rate when the registrant receives claims notice. The original questions refer to the problems related to pre ordering domains.
  *   Original questions are (page 10 – RFP Appendix):
     *   Do you have any records of the “abandonment rate” (i.e., domain name applicants who request the registration of a particular domain but do not go through to complete the payment)?
     *   If so, what are the rates of abandonment for legacy TLDs and ccTLDs?
     *   What is the abandonment rate for a New gTLD during the Claims period – both for names which receive Claims Notices and those which do not? And after the Claims period?
  *   We are trying to understand whether the claims notice is only triggered when someone is actually trying to pay for the domain.
  *   Rephrase the question to: At what point during the purchase process is the claims notice downloaded? Use multiple choice or dropdown menu to provide options.
  *   During Sunrise registration, the record of trademark would be downloaded. Claims notice would not trigger the download of anything.
  *   Information from Berry: Registrant enters the domain at the Registrar where it is queried as to whether its available for registration. If the potential Registrant places the domain in the cart with intent of registering it, the Registry will also check if it appears on the Domain Names List (DNL).  If it does, the Registry sends a CNIS code to the Registrar that notifies the Registrant of the claims notice.  If registered, the Registrar returns a registration confirmation to the TMCH. This is reference to the TMCH Technical Specification as documented on IETF.
  *   ACTION ITEM: Staff to circulate Berry’s information about the domain name registration process.
  *   The registrar would not be downloading any trademark record, so the question is invalid. Eliminate Q15.
  *   This question may be completely redundant. The only caveat is that we need to leave the door open for someone else to explore an alternative business model. If you code in too much in the policy/procedures, then you don't leave much room for expansion.
  *   What is the most beneficial point? Or lease beneficial point? Why it matters when the claims notice is generated? Don't think we can get to "beneficial" because different models will answer differently.
  *   Rephrase the question to: At what point of the registration process do you typically query whether the domain name is registered in the TMCH?
  *   We are trying to understand the theoretical abandonment rate. Whether the query to the TMCH would trigger the generation of claims notice. We want to get at the typical process with regard to abandonment. We want to get at the functional problems. If there is standard process, registrants themselves are the ones that query.

Q16

  *   Q16 is lumped together with Q15
  *   The sequence of event is not coming through clearly. This question should go before Q15.

General Comment

  *   Put all the claims related questions in one section and it would flow better.
  *   There are no questions about “abandonment” in this survey at all. In the RFP Appendix, questions on page 10 to the first section of page 11 are to understand the abandonment rate and how abandonment happens. These questions also aim to elicit anecdotes.
  *   AG asked similar questions to elicit data regarding abandonment rate during the TMCH review, but the respondents did not provide answers, hence they suggested to remove these questions.
  *   If we aren't going to get abandonment data, could we ask people yes/no if they have/can/want to provide it (to keep the survey short for people who won't share this info or don't have it)?
  *   AG agreed to provide respondents option if they want to do a deeper dive in the survey about abandonment rate. Those who are motivated and interested can contribute without turning others off.



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-data/attachments/20180613/e16b7a5a/attachment-0001.html>