2017-11-17 Sub Team for Data

Notes/ Action Items

Action Items:

-- When this is presented to the full WG we should raise these concerns about the type of evidence we are gathering, the usefulness, and the reality of receiving it, e.g. anecdotal vs data driven, first hand anecdotal vs other anecdotal evidence etc.  Please refer to the notes, transcript, and recording on the wiki at: 2017-11-17 Sub Team for Data

-- Staff will split draft questions in two columns: 1) anecdotal 2) data driven, and make sure updates were captured from today's discussion.

-- Staff can trace concerns from the WG about "dictionary" words and suggest some other terminology.  We think we ended up feeling that it was more appropriate than "generic", but checking will be helpful.

-- Staff will do a Doodle poll for the next round of meetings.

- Susan Payne (section 2 of the Data Request Table) to Chair the next call the week of 27 November.

- Staff to contact Karen Lentz from GDD staff and invite her to join the Data Sub Team call for helping refine the guiding questions

Notes:

 Survey of New gTLD Registry Operators

Question 1/first row (pages 1-2):

-- End of the second sub bullet add "If so, what are they?"

-- Last bullet "If so, please share steps you took to resolve the complaint and whether they were successfully received."

-- Also on the last bullet: if we take the literal approach it might be helpful to say "complaints on behalf of brand owners", but maybe we don't have to get into that level of detail.

-- We have talked about whether ROs will provide their pricing and generally they probably won't be willing to share.  Is there any harm in asking "are you willing to provide the details on your standard Sunrise Pricing and your premium pricing.

-- "Do you have suggestions for other policies that would have made Sunrise more effective and balanced and if so, what are they and why do you suggest them?"

-- Purpose of the RPMs was to protect trademark rights -- so if you didn't participate did you think it wasn't protecting trademark owners.  Want to keep the scope appropriate.

-- Once we get into the how you would have done it differently: that isn't data that is going to support our work; we want to know why have trademark owners participated or not.

-- Could we ask a question about the RO strategy for Sunrise?  Is it to make money? Establish a reputation as an RPM champion? Ask them what their strategy was?

-- Noted that ROs were forced to use Sunrise.

-- The problem with asking about "making more effective" is what is meant that.  We already have a question about whether the RPMs were effective.  Might want to ask their view on what is meant by "effectiveness."

-- Consider whether to recommend reverting to the original suggestion that Sunrise and Claims be alternatives rather than requirements for both.

-- How does asking these questions get to the root of our charter -- the effectiveness of RPMs.  Getting objective data would be easier to do and then let the data speak for itself: "Did you have premium pricing and if so how did that work?"  "How many Sunrise registrations did you have?"  Our scope: Whether the RPMs are working today and if not, why.

-- Trying to draft questions that would result in answers from the ROs.  Distinguish premium pricing from that which overlaps with Sunrise pricing.

-- In the sub bullet where you ask will you provide your standard Sunrise pricing: "Please provide your standard Sunrise pricing, stand general availability pricing, premium pricing [in each one]?"

-- So we could ask about premium pricing and what, if any, steps were taken to avoid an overlap with Sunrise Registrations.

-- Maybe also - did you operate a formal (or informal) premium pricing challenge process for brand owners?

-- Seems like we may have strayed into purpose, rather than effectiveness.  Are anecdotes really data driven?  Not sure how forthcoming people will be on strategy, etc.

-- Not targeted at ROs so tough to get that data.  Do support that we do need more than anecdotal data.  How do we get information that people will actually give us and that is useful?

-- Suggest that we identify the "soft" questions.

-- Note that these are just guiding questions for the survey provider.  Some of these questions and the best way to frame them is a conversation we can have with that professional.  Need to explain clearly what it is that we are trying to elicit and for what purpose.

-- Perhaps we use the anecdotal questions to drive our drafting of data-driven questions....

-- We don't want to put out a survey that is only seeking data and we get nothing back.

-- Maybe what we should do is when this is presented to the full WG we should raise these concerns about the type of evidence we are gathering, the usefulness, and the reality of receiving it.

-- What if we were to create draft questions in two columns: 1) anecdotal 2) data driven.

-- Design could eat up a bunch of the budget before it was even socialized.  Unless we design this in a way that it is every easy to fill out (clear, direct, easy questions) and not much time is consumed we won't get responses.  

Question 2/second row (pages 2-3):

-- Top of page 3: How would they know if it was in the TMCH unless they have done a reverse engineering job.  How would they know what's been registered in the clearing house.

-- Registries can know what is in the TMCH.  The batch release, but trying not to limit it in this case.  These questions would go to how the ROs would feel about that type of request.  Keep it more open ended.