Page History

PROPOSED AGENDA

1. Review Agenda
2. Review of draft questions for practitioners
3. Review list of practitioners/identify contacts
4. Next steps: survey and data analysis
5. AOB

BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS

Draft Questions for Practitioners for Sub Team Review 09 April 2018

List of URS Practitioners 07 March 2018

Mp3

Attendance & WebEx chat

Notes/ Action Items

Action Items: 

1. Staff will send the final draft of the questions for practitioners in redline and clean versions to the group of Sub Team members that were on today’s call (DONE).
2. The WG Co-Chairs will send the final draft of the questions for practitioners to the full WG following the Co-Chairs/Staff call on Friday, 13 April.

Notes:

Survey/Question Revisions:

1. For all questions asking for opinions (positive/negative etc.): Change to a 5-choice Likert scale, to include a neutral option.

2.  Question 8 under Substantive Issues:

8.    Based on your experience with the URS, should the standard for the burden of proof be modified?

A.         No, it is adequate as is

B.         Yes, it should be lowered

C.         Yes, it should be made higher

D.         No opinion

If you are advocating for a change in the standard of proof, please explain the basis for your position: _________________________________________________________

-- Rationale: If you just do A-C, saying it is adequate doesn’t invite further comment.  Idea was that it would allow on both sides of the issue it would make sense to ask you to explain that.  We need to drill down on this to figure out if it will be lower or higher.

-- In Survey Monkey you can put the comment box right next to it.  Can also make it obligatory.  Could put in the text box immediately following the question.  This should keep the question format more streamlined.

3. Question 1 under Other:

1.     Have you chosen not to file a URS in a particular matter?

A.         Yes

B.         No

C.         Not applicable

 If the answer is yes, please elaborate and if possible without violating confidentiality, privilege or attorney work product, specify the alternative action you did take:___________________________

-- Why do we have this question?  We included it because we want to try to get more information. Could be 100% saying “yes”.  We could keep the question and change the comment box.  People probably aren’t going to want to go into why they used one or the other.  Would be more specific to direct it to a specific matter. 

Change the question under C to say, “If you chose not to file a URS in a particular matter, what was the reason? Please choose from the following options:”

1. No possibility to have the domain name transferred to the complainant
2. Cost reasons
3. Time reasons
4. Requirement to show that the registrant used the domain name
5. Other: please elaborate and if possible without violating confidentiality, privilege or attorney work product, specify the alternative action you did take:___________________________

Next steps:

-- Make the changes and submit the questions to group that was on the call today, and then the Co-Chairs will send them to the full WG by Friday, 13 April.

-- How do we want to implement this?  For the list of practitioners, Kathy suggested that Renee Fossen could help with email addresses.

-- Staff can put the survey into Survey Monkey and ask for an identifier (email) to screen for duplicates; survey can be anonymized.

-- Reconvene the sub team to analyze the results.