Page History

Mp3

AC Recording

AC Chat

Transcript

Attendees:Attendance

Apologies: Philip CorwinLeaving early: Kristine

DorrainChair: Kurt Pritz

Notes/ Action Items

Action Items:

For Staff:

For each Sub Team meeting, Staff to note, as the last agenda item, who is going to chair for the next meeting; Staff to keep track of the chairing rotation

Staff to work with RPMs PDP WG Co-Chairs and Kurt Pritz to clarify the structure and format of the Data Sub Team meeting on Saturday, 28 October in ICANN60; Staff to revise the meeting description to clarify that it is a practical working session for the Sub Team in order to set the expectations (welcome observers but only Sub Team members can speak)

For RPM Data Sub Team Meeting on Saturday, 28 October at ICANN60:

Michael Graham to review the scope of the six targeted groups in Chart 1 with a view to defining them further, if needed

Sub Team members to divide up the first six sections in Chart 1 and present the draft suggested questions

Section 1: Kristine Dorrain (with help from Susan Payne and Kurt Pritz)

Section 2: Susan Payne

Section 3: Michael Graham

Section 4: Kurt Pritz

Section 5: Rebecca Tushnet

Section 6: Lori Schulman & Michael Graham

Notes:

1.         Select/elect Sub Team chair(s)

-- Suggest that we set an agenda and work through it collectively.

-- Could it be rotational?

-- Staff will take on is that the first agenda item for the next call will be who is chairing.

-- Keep the option of the chair open.

2.     Discuss updated Table 1, including assigning volunteers to each set of questions for the target groups

-- Purpose and scope are set -- approved by the GNSO.

-- Refine the questions for the survey provider (far right column) -- survey provider may have minimal understanding, but could try to seek someone with expertise (add it to the requirements).

-- Assign the 6 target groups in the table to volunteers to try to refine the questions that could be socialized by 27 October so that they could be discussed.

-- In terms of target group number 2 (registrars) -- there is a built in question for registrars so that may be a slightly different task.

-- With respect to registrants: based on the fact that we have a very limited budget these could be reached through the CSG and the NCSG.

-- The 6th group: we haven't identified the trade associations.

-- These are likely to be very imperfect questions.

1. Survey of New gTLD Registry Operators

Sample question: Do you have any evidence either anecdotal or otherwise that Registry Sunrise premium pricing practices limiting the ability of trademark owners to participate during sunrise?

-- Do we set preconceptions with this question?

-- In putting together the questions we may not know how ROs might answer the question.

-- Budget in the request to the GNSO Council was a minimum $50K for a survey to a relatively closed universe.  Also coming to the middle of a fiscal year.

-- Just started the internal procurement process -- there is a fixed process that ICANN goes through for accountability.

-- Guidance on possible providers as survey designers and input on the questions.  Don't necessarily need specific draft questions, but direction and input on the kind of questions: what are we trying to ask?

-- A lot of the pricing is driven by how much design work has to be done up front.  If you go too broad the third party doesn't know what you want.  The complexity in the INTA survey really hurt us in the responses.

-- Prioritize what we want -- the questions from the sub team may not give enough guidance on the outside.

-- Questions should be limited and in the right order to get the best response rate.

-- What we think we have to have may not be something we can get.

-- Concerns about 6 universes -- how do we define registrants, for example.  In the areas where we are trying to be universal we should try to define the universe narrowly.

-- For the INTA RFP we had a wide range of bid amounts.  $50K was at the lower range.

-- At INTA we had an impact study committee/team that did a lot of the legwork and the RFP.

-- We have to be careful about this; most brand owners are not steeped in ICANN.

-- Range and expectation and budget: looked work that was done for the CCT-RT.  One of the reasons why we put in the estimated minimum budget -- in terms of the range of costs if you are going to do a global survey (similar to CCT-RT) that survey alone cost over $200K and we don't have that. 

-- In designing and refining these tasks that framing is helpful.

Assignments:

-- Kristine: Survey of Registry Operators (1) -- Kurt and others can help.

Look at the universe and see if we can define that.

-- Susan: Survey of Registrars (2)

-- Michael: survey of trademark and brand owners. (3)

-- Kurt: Survey of Domain Name Registrants (4)

-- Rebecca: Survey of Potential Registrants (5)

-- Lori: Survey of public interest groups and trade associations (6) -- tentative.

ICANN60:

-- Work with Co-Chairs and Sub Team members on the structure for the meeting.

-- Cannot close the session -- anyone can observe.

-- Try to change the description to make it clear that it is a working session of the sub team, but people can observe.