[Gnso-rpm-data] Actions & Notes: RPM Data Sub Team 20 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 20 June 2018 (17:30 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/aoMpBQ

Best Regards,
Ariel

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



ACTION ITEM

  *   AG to touch base with Research Now SSI and see how the cost would be impacted if the survey is expanded beyond NA region but still conducted in English.
  *   AG to revise the questions and send to the point persons/Sub Team to review during ICANN62 and the first week of July.
  *   Staff to discuss with AG about the distribution channels of the other surveys and start the discussion via the Sub Team mailing list.



NOTES
Discussions about Survey Outreach

  *   Lori expressed concerns about the ways to identify registrants/potential registrants.
  *   Based on Prof. Tushnet’s understanding, we are not only targeting people who attempted to register new gTLD domain names and received Claims Notice before. The target respondents are the people who are interested in registering a new gTLD domain name or tried to register new gTLDs in the past. Make sure AG is reaching the correct target group using validation checks, and not just the Sub Set Lori raised.
  *   For registrant/potential registrant surveys, the initial screening question is that “Have you registered new gTLD domain names?”. AG can include additional screening questions to find out whether the respondents are the registrant population that the Sub Team is interested in reaching. AG can ask what type of gTLDs have they registered?
  *   AG is planning to distribute the survey among the North American panel of the Research Now SSI, who are English speaking.
  *   If the Sub Team need more demographic information, additional questions can be included, so the results can be cut based on different types of demographics.
  *   More difficult way to reach the target respondents would be working with registrars and ask them to distribute the surveys to people who attempted to register new gTLD domains and received claims notice.
  *   Sub Team would love if the registries/registrars are willing to send out the surveys to the registrants/potential registrants. Should pursue that avenue.
  *   Statistically speaking, you will get a tiny number of people that qualify with regard to having registered new gTLD domains and receiving Claims Notice.
  *   Perhaps people in North America aren't easily intimidated, but people from other regions are.
  *   Survey cannot be limited to North America to be as comprehensive as we need to be. If we can't do the job correctly, then I have some fears about how this will be accepted by the community. Sub Team/Co-Chairs would face the criticisms from the community, as the survey results would not be representative. We need to provide additional rationale beyond the "cost" factor.
  *   To expand the survey distribution to other geographic regions and use different languages would add cost significantly. Research NOW SSI do not have a lot of concerns with the lack of responses. But cost would increase due to the development of survey questions in other languages, the coding of surveys, and the review of responses in other languages.
  *   Section 5 (Survey of Potential Respondents) Relevant Charter Q 3 addresses translations....how did this get missed? There's translating the survey, and there's the question as to whether useful data can be obtained regarding translations of the Claims Notice (the latter being the Charter question).
  *   We know that specific Charter questions talks about translations of the Claims Notice. This of course does not imply that the survey itself is to be translated. So perhaps the question for AG is whether/how the geographical limitation can be overcome, and how responses concerning a translated Claims Notice may be obtained even via an English-language survey (if possible). The staff understanding is that the surveys will be conducted only in English. Perhaps the Sub Team and AG can discuss whether, within that limitation, the geographical coverage can be extended? Bearing the cost issue in mind. Could we do the surveys only in English, but go to other geographic regions beyond NA?
  *   ACTION ITEM: AG to touch base with Research Now SSI and see how the cost would be impacted if the survey is expanded beyond NA region but still conducted in English.
  *   We have not discussed in detail about the distribution channel for other surveys.
  *   ACTION ITEM: Staff to discuss with AG about the distribution channels of the other surveys and start the discussion via the Sub Team mailing list.

General Comments: Potential Registrant Survey

  *   It is really a comprehension survey, particularly for the potential respondents. Like the short and sweet format which may likely get more responses.

  *   Same reordering of the registrant survey can be applied to the potential registrant survey.
  *   There is limitation in what we could learn from the data gathered through the current survey questions.
  *   Would AG suggest that we use separate Registrant and Potential Registrant surveys or a single survey that has two tracks based on answers.  This could provide another means for ensuring qualification of survey takers. Depending on their answers to the first screening question, they would be directed to the registrant/potential registrant surveys.

Q1i

  *   This question is targeting the primary demographic of the survey. Support the grid format.
  *   The question may have missed the point "what the potential registrants think about the claims notice after they are shown the claims notice". The real focus is to understand how important they perceive the claims notice.
  *   This question intends to transform the original open-ended question to a closed question. In the grid, AG lists these potential factors that may go into potential registrants’ decisions for continuing registration.
  *   We do not want to limit the question only Group B and D. Make the question also available to Group C.
  *   For Group B & D -- people who have never registered and saw the Claims Notice for the first time -- we are asking them two questions essentially: 1) Of the 5 factors, which one most influenced their decisions? 2) Why would they decide to abandon after they see the claims notice? Do we want to have follow up questions? We are not opposed to a short survey, but we just want to be sure we're getting it all.
  *   Is this question going to the wrong people? Don't think these people are in the position to make that decision if they have hardly seen any Claims Notice.
  *   If respondents select “would not influence me at all”, “not sure”, “I don't know”, they would not see the follow question, i.e., what are the reasons the Claims Notice would affect them. Only when they select "yes", they would see the follow-up question.
  *   ACTION ITEM: AG to provide respondents the options to explain further even when they select “would not influence me at all”; they should also get a follow up question to explain their reason.
  *   ACTION ITEM: AG to delete "Someone else already having claimed my domain name" in the grid.

Q1j

  *   No context for the options.

Next Steps

  *   AG to revise the questions, each author of the original survey to serve as the point person to review the revised version, and the entire Sub Team to approve all the revised questions, making sure the Sub Team is in agreement.
  *   ACTION ITEM: AG to revise the questions and send to the point persons/Sub Team to review during ICANN62 and the first week of July.
  *   WG to see the final surveys for information only.
  *   As AG needs some time to code and test the survey after the survey questions are finalized, anticipate to distribute the surveys in mid/late July.
  *   Reporting of the result would be late August.
  *   There are many complaints about scheduling conflicts so it is hard to organize an ad-hoc meeting for the Data Sub Team in Panama.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-data/attachments/20180620/11bd7c1c/attachment-0001.html>