[Gnso-rpm-data] Following My Question from Monday re: Qualification of Registrants for Survey

[Lori Schulman]

Dear All,

To address Rebecca’s concerns on the call, I have modified my 3rd bullet point below.  In a nutshell I am concerned that the pool will not pick up the actual registrants with actual experiences in the new gTLDs given how small we know that population is.   Adding to my concerns is the information that we learned today about the survey being confined to North American and given only in English.  .com is king in North America as are .ca and .mx.  I am concerned that we do not the means of verification or a pool of diversity that we require.  Noting cost constraints, we are running a risk of the results not being sufficient of analysis.   Kristine’s suggestion for registrars of new gTLDs to add a link to the survey at the end of a purchase experience would certainly address some of those concerns.

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



From: Lori Schulman
Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2018 1:32 PM
To: 'Julie Hedlund' <julie.hedlund at icann.org>; gnso-rpm-data at icann.org
Subject: Following My Question from Monday re: Qualification of Registrants for Survey

Dear All,

I know that we are approaching today’s meeting and I wanted to reiterate something on the list rather than to absorb more time on the live call.  On Monday, I had asked about how Registrants will be vetted for the survey.  Stacy from AG explained that there will be “funneling” type questions that will qualify survey takers as “registrants” and they will be funneled to the rest of the questions.  I am still not clear on how the questions will be drafted in order to ensure that we are getting survey takers who understand what is being asked based on their direct experience.  Does AG have proposed draft questions already? If so, may we see them?  Using paid test takers for random, consumer oriented surveys makes sense to me.  For example, surveys on taste preferences or product comparisons.   However, using that kind of pool for something as technical as our survey still troubles me.  This goes back to something that Rebecca had explained regarding making sure that we are getting responses based on actual experiences rather than risking survey takers “ranking” or establishing “preferred” answers.    If we want to query the understandability of claims notices then I think whether one has seen them before or not may not matter.  However, I do think that if we are targeting users who have made actual decisions based on actual notices then we should only be targeting known purchasers who have received those notices.  It seems to me that only the registrars would know for sure and I still have doubts about surveying the general public through a paid survey taking system.  Therefore, I think it is appropriate to set some real parameters here.  I want to make sure that we have the best pool possible given the technical nature of the survey.  And I have further questions:


  *   How does AG group plan to drill down to specific segments that we want?
  *   What will the demographic profile look like?
  *   How will we verify that the respondents are legitimately “interested in” or  have attempted to purchase domains in new gTLDs?
  *   How will data be “sifted” after its collected?  For example, we should identify in advance what we are looking for i.e., age, employment, number of domains registered, number of abandoned, etc.

I have asked this question twice and I am still stuck on some of the details of the response.  Perhaps the analysis group can respond in writing which could clarify what we are doing?

Thank.

Thank you.


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 Julie Hedlund
Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2018 4:28 PM
To: gnso-rpm-data at icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-data at icann.org>
Subject: [Gnso-rpm-data] REMINDER: Proposed Agenda and Documents: Meeting 20 June at 1730 UTC

Dear Data Sub Team Members,

In preparation for Wednesday’s meeting (20 June) at 17:30 UTC for 60 minutes, please see the proposed agenda and Google docs:

1. Review agenda
2. Discussion of the proposed Potential Registrant survey questions and suggested changes by Analysis Group: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1iY4KsWpioC8Sacs-pWurfnKxhOsiQA7YaSo1wuxbpsw/edit?usp=sharing
3. AOB

Please also see attached the RFP appendix that includes the original questions as developed by the Sub Team, which is 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=Bb4EV8WQ8ObcRGf1XeGg9OwOOmMLz5RVyP54hpSClKA&s=XUKC6OeuKEUVzKhmNyj8xInxg392uUwpMp7fn56ve3w&e=>.

Best Regards,
Mary, Julie, Ariel, and Berry
________________________________
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-data/attachments/20180620/fe95f7d0/attachment-0001.html>