[Gnso-rpm-data] Actions & Notes: RPM Data Sub Team 18 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 18 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/aIMpBQ

Best Regards,
Ariel

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



ACTION ITEM

  *   Staff to email the full WG the schedule of upcoming meetings, including Sub Team calls (DONE)



NOTES

General Comments

  *   AG will collaborate with ICANN staff to distribute the registrant survey among ICANN community groups that may include potential respondents.
  *   There would be a filter question at the beginning, asking the respondents whether they have registered domains in the new gTLD. If not, they will be filtered to complete the potential registrant survey. Hypothetical questions are posted to both actual registrants/potential registrants.
  *   The way that AG broke out the surveys is correct.
  *   Is there a way to protect the responses to earlier questions being “contaminated”? You have a forward track and you cannot go back. Consider setting up the survey in a way that does not allow the respondents to go back and revise their responses to earlier questions?
  *   There is concern about the single use case, as we may not receive representative responses.
  *   Registrant survey targets 50 complete responses, and potential registrant survey targets 200 complete responses. If we get 200 potential registrants, sub group of 50 is acceptable.
  *   The three domain name examples at the very beginning of the registrant survey are not new gTLDs. Any examples we use must be live.





Discussions of the Hypothetical Questions (Doc sent by Kristine)

  *   The respondents do not necessarily need to have already seen a Claims Notice.
  *   Rebecca likes the scenarios/examples proposed by Kristine, but is concerned with asking the respondent multiple times for the various scenarios. This may not match the registrant’s actual experience registering a domain name.
  *   The key is to show a Claims Notice and ask respondents to provide responses to specific questions. virtue.food example would be helpful to elicit thoughts from registrants. We cannot have a survey without some imagined domain name. Other than that, supports examples from Kristine.
  *   Is there a threshold question? The current filter of the hypothetical question is that the respondent attempted to register for a new gTLD domain name but did not complete the registration.
  *   Survey takers would be sophisticated enough to understand that people register different domain names for different uses.
  *   We would be showing a Claims Notice specifically for VIRTUE.
  *   From the way the survey is being set up, isn't the idea to describe the sequence/process that a registrant/potential registrant goes through in order to see how they interact with the domain registration process? That seems to staff to be what is typically described as a "use case".
  *   If we give respondents a particular example, there would be a huge effect on the survey responses. We should at least give a couple of examples.
  *   Regarding Kristine’s proposal, the issue is with regard to survey administration. It can be troublesome to present survey takers a whole list of examples/scenarios. Respondents may shape their responses by comparing these different examples/scenarios. The response we get would not be representative. Happy to add a xerox example. We need to do some subgrouping and random rotation, making sure one respondent will get one xerox example and one virtue example. Simulate the survey to what the registrant would be experiencing.
  *   Don't understand why all the examples could not be presented to the respondents at once.
  *   Strongly oppose to using an actual brand, especially a famous mark.
  *   A survey does best when it replicates the actual reality. What is the best way to get people’s thought process via this survey by simulating the scenario that they are registering a domain name in the new gTLDs?
  *   AG agrees with Rebecca's points. AG proposes to include a screening question: if you are going to register a domain name, what would you most likely register the domain name for? Based on respondents’ answers to the screening question, port/funnel them into a grid question. They would see some, but not all of the options in the grid.
  *   Would the virtue.food example be an arbitrary example?
  *   Funneling could work, but concerned whether it would be too limiting. Can we open the registrant survey up to more than 50 respondents? Can we ask this hypothetical question also to the potential registrants?
  *   AG would ask this hypothetical question to both registrant and potential registrants (targeting a total of 250 responses). Can certainly target more than 50 registrants too.
  *   In the scenario of virtue.food, when we present the Claims Notice of virtue, we need to know what the trademark is registered for. The reason for the registrants to proceed or not to proceed depends on what the TM is registered for.
  *   An actual Claims Notice for https://domainnamewire.com/2014/01/30/trademark-claims-notice/. Virtue is registered for "medical equipment".
  *   There is no chance that an English word is not already registered as a TM, but we can use a TM example of limited rights. We will need to fictionalize the Claims Notice for “virtue”, especially the goods/classes/jurisdiction elements. Do not set people up for an actual cybersquatting experience. Example, "virtue" for doors?
  *   Sub Team is coalescing on an agreement to use virtue.food as an example, show a fictionalized Claims Notice for virtue, use a funnel to direct respondents to questions, ask them what they would do with the domain name based on their own experience.



Procedural Matters

  *   On Wed, 20 June, first 30 min is a brief meeting for the full WG to get on the same page in preparation for ICANN62; the remaining 60 min (17:30-18:30 UTC) would be used for the Data Sub Team.
  *   Goal is to finish off the surveys by the Wed meeting for AG to revise/finalize the questions.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-data/attachments/20180618/c53947f6/attachment-0001.html>