2017-10-18 Sub Team for Data

Notes/ Action Items

Action Items:

For Next Meeting on 20 October:

• Staff to revise the attachment 2 table (Data Source 1-6) to include 4 columns: 1) audience, 2) scope, 3) imperfect/charter question from attachment 1, 4) proposed tailored question providing guidance to the survey vendor; once table is revised, staff to circulate it to the Sub Team by Friday 20 Oct.
• Sub Team to organize volunteers to propose tailored questions for column 4 for data source 1-6 for each audience during the call on Friday, 20 Oct.
• Data Sub Team members to discuss the selection of Chair/Co-Chair.

Other actions:

• Staff to find out which URS reps will be attending ICANN60 (2/3 URS providers have reps in the RPMs WG - ADNDRC, MFSD, FORUM)
• WG to promote the session about the URS topic and encourage more attendees to share their experience with the URS.
• Staff to re-send the data request (DMPM) to the WG mailing list.
• Staff to present the Sub Team the RFP details, process, timeline when more information becomes available.

Notes:

1. SOI Updates:

Griffin Barnett: I have an SOI update, which you can view here: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/Griffin+Barnett+SOI

Phil Marano: Here is a link to my updated SOI: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/Phillip+Vincent+Marano+SOI

2.  Overview of Topics & Details for ICANN60 RPM Sessions:

-- Saturday 28 October 15.15-16.45 -- Data Sub Team Meeting

-- Saturday 28 October 17.00-18.30 -- Meeting with CCT RT on what they plan to recommend on RPMs in their final report

-- Monday 30 October 15.15-16.45 -- Overview of Uniform Rapid Suspension (URS), presentation of initial staff findings on URS data

-- Thursday 02 November 13.30-15.00 -- Community feedback on experiences with URS, formation of Sub Team to refine URS questions

-- Encourage RPM PDP WG members to go to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures (SubPro) meetings.

Question:  Do we expect URS reps during the meeting? 3 providers already? 2 of the 3 URS providers have reps who are members of this Working Group. (See action item above.)

3.  Data Sub Team Meeting:

Agenda:

a. Selection of Sub Team chair(s)

b. Review GNSO Council approval of Sunrise and Trademark Claims data request

c. Begin discussion of ideas and suggestions for refining and/or clarifying the objectives and scope of the Sunrise and Claims data request in light of the GNSO Council’s directions and the relevant Charter question.

Members of the Sub Team: https://community.icann.org/x/fY1EB

a. Volunteers for Chair/Co-Chair:

-- Keep open for the Sub Team to come back to for Friday's meeting.

b. Review GNSO Council approval of Sunrise and Trademark Claims data request

-- Is there a clear understanding by the Sub Team member of how we plan to use a professional survey.  And when we say survey do we have a clear understanding of who would be receiving that survey.

-- As to who is receiving the survey: In terms of the budget and costs it does go up quite significantly as the recipients increase.  The groups should be defined and targeted.  For contracted parties there is an obvious way and for registrants we can use non-commercial/non-contracted; for trademark the IP.

--Look at these purposes (Attachment 2) in light of the specific charter questions they are meant to answer.  Then have a strawman proposal so that when the WG comes to discuss the actual survey design with the designer that designer will know what are our objectives and the types of questions.

-- Wondering what sort of process or procedure does ICANN have to deal with this once we have our general design then to do the RFP.  Is there a procedure that we follow and if so is there particular information that we would want to provide.  A lot of the survey design process was back and forth with the survey designer.  To the extent that we can combine working through the survey design with the designer early on could allow this to go faster.

-- ICANN does have a fairly fixed procurement process.  The staff support for the Sub Team have commenced that process internally.  Started talking with colleagues from other teams who have experience working with survey providers, such as the CCT RT.  The first step will be for ICANN Org to put out an RFP.  So any information as to scope or specific requests will be very helpful to prepare that RFP.  Allow the possibility for the people responding to the RFP to have the experience with the subject matter.

1. Sub Team provide suggestions on scope/specifics.

2. Go through the list to refine it to have something very concrete to share this the contracted entity.

3.  If people have suggestions for likely providers we can make them aware of the RFP.

Discussion of Attachments 1 and 2:

-- One option is to pick a group (1/2/3) and find the low-hanging fruit.  Pick the questions that are already concrete and to see if they are in good enough shape to send them to a survey operator.  Other questions may be too open ended.

-- Keep in mind to maximize the relevance of the data.

-- In Item 1: Can we get an agreement on what are the low-hanging fruit?

-- The challenge is that Attachment 2 is a great summary, but the questions are separately listed in Attachment 1.  What we need to do in order to answer the question on low-hanging fruit is to define what the fruit is by inserting the questions in each of these sections so we can see what would be asked in that survey.

-- Example: question 2 in attachment 1 would be refined to be more precise and then drop it into the first survey in attachment 2 -- lay out the questions next to the purpose and scope.

-- Helpful to have an additional column for what we think the type of questions we are going to ask.

-- We know the charter questions and attachment 2 was our thoughts on data gathering.  Thought we are working on attachment 2.  The only issue was to maximize the value on attachment 2 on sunrise/trademark, but then go to marketplace protections.

-- Essential that we suggest some of the questions to give the survey provider the direction.  So, combine attachment 1 and 2 and come up with specific questions.

-- Also, confirm where we want to get the data, from whom, and in a survey or not.

-- Is what we provide to the survey provider what we are trying to obtain -- just get the information organized so that it can be presented to a survey provider.  They need: context, purpose, what we are seeking.  Organize in a fashion that is presentable to get an RFP.  On the other hand 7-14 can be approached differently.

-- It seems that what we will do is to expand the table into four columns: third is specific charter questions; fourth column is the guidance that will be worked on with the professionals.  One form could be the imperfect questions, but also could take the form of notes and bullet points -- why we are asking the question and the types of data we want to get back.  The more specific the better.  The professional will make it understandable to someone who doesn't have the technical expertise.

-- Fourth column would be filled in with the assistance of the survey provider.  Maybe the work for the survey is done.  We just organize it so it can be used for an RFP.

--  Questions 7-14.  Information from three sources: Question 7: research (law students, researchers, sourcing through academic contacts); 8: using contractors that would work with staff to develop information based on statistics -- probably an RFP; 9-14: areas that staff could compile a list or data as a starting point.

What staff has started doing on 7-14:

-- Much of this staff has already started in motion. Example in 7 that data is being gathered by staff.  What we haven't done is to look if necessary at the UDRP complaints, haven't done articles and research on gaming; 8: We can work with Deloitte and IBM, but on pause the first two points -- semantics of programming and feasiblity question.  Not priority at the moment; 9-14: to the extent that is compiling data that exists from URS providers, registries, and registrars, that too is something we have already started.

-- The priority for this Sub Team are questions 1-6, the surveys.  Idea is for the designer to do an omnibus survey with some custom questions for some groups.

-- If we have the imperfect questions, the context, and rationale and put it in the chart is that what we need to do are there additional things to discuss?

-- Important for the Sub Team to do: once the staff puts in the third column so it can be looked at against purpose and scope, and audience; then Sub Team decides if there should be clarifications to the survey companies -- such as a column 4 as imperfect questions.  We want to give as much direction to the survey company as possible.  Volunteers from Sub Team could come up with proposed questions.  1, 2, and 3 and the 4-6 could be combined.  Ask to volunteer for specific data sources.