Re: [gnso-consumercci-dt] Consumer Metrics: notes from presentation to GNSO Council, 23-Jun-2012

[Rosemary Sinclair <rosemary.sinclair@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Steve and everyone

This sounds like GREAT and overall positive engagement from Council!

That in itself is a huge achievement

I will read transcript when I get the chance....

Sounds to me like we have a number of important comments to consider

Was Bruce Tonkin anywhere in frame???

Cheers

Rosemary



Rosemary Sinclair
Director, External Relations
Australian School of Business
UNSW
+61 413 734490

On 23/06/2012, at 7:38 PM, "Steve DelBianco" <sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> In Saturday's GNSO Council work session, we spent an hour presenting and 
> discussing our draft advice.
> 
> The presentation is attached.
> 
> Also attached (and below) are notes for how I described the "Key Issues".  
> Below that are the questions/comments from Councilors and general audience.
> 
> 40+ Metrics for Consumer Trust, Consumer Choice, & Competition
> combination of surveys and stats
> someattempt to measure costs;
> not all have targets
> None are intended to steer indiv Ry operators or drive policy development
> 
> User and registrant Surveys for Consumer Trust & Consumer Choice
> Combined annual surveys of users and registrants
> Assess awareness of new gTLDs in general; and of specific-purpose gTLDs
> perceptions about trust,
> experience in finding desired content;
> experience with phishing & malware;
> registrant experience pursuing cybersquatting
> 
> Consumer Trust - Relative Incidence of UDRP, URS, & Litigation
> UDRP+URS complaints and decisions against registrants “relative” to legacy 
> gTLDs.  E.g. 1000 UDRP+URS decisions against registrants in 1 million 
> registrations give a relative rate of 0.1 percent or 1 per 1000
> Ry Contract breach notices: [significantly] lower than in legacy gTLDs.  1/20 
> =  5% of registries.   5% of new Registries could be as high as 100 breach 
> notices!
> 
> Consumer Choice - Defensive & Duplicate Registrations, Redirects
> 3 potential indicators of registrations done for “defensive” purposes:
> sunrise registrations or blocks using TM clearinghouse
> redirects (automated
> self-reported duplicate registrations
> Collect data from IP organizations on quantities and costs of def 
> registrations and of pursuing cybersquatting.
> Competition - Wholesale and Retail pricing of Domain Registrations
> Our proposed Competition metrics include comparing wholesale and retail 
> prices in new gTLDs open to public vs legacy gTLDs open to general public.  
> No target, just comparison.
> USG is keenly interested in weekly data on revenue and registration 
> volume,both legacy and new gTLDs.
> Appendix B:  ICANN legal advised us they are concerned about collecting, 
> comparing, and sharing non-pubic price data.   Also concerned about potential 
> that price focus could lead to price recommendations.
> To address this: WG could recommend that a third party could collect and 
> analyze the data, sharing only aggregates and stats.
> gTLD expansion program Costs and Benefits
> USG comments: “benefits of new gTLDs must outweigh costs to consumers and 
> other market participants”
> WG asked the USG reps to reconcile that with what’s in the Affirmation.
> WG won’t attempt to measure all benefits and costs.  Some significant costs 
> are evaluated, though.
> 
> Q&A/Discussion on Council:
> JeffNeuman: troubled by timing of 3-yr targets; some targets are unreasonable 
> too.
> Ching Chiao: will these metrics drive registry contract requirements?  (No)
> Wendy Seltzer: flag concerns with framing of Consumer Trust; looking 
> backwards atpast abuses; need to see unexpected benefits of new innovation
> MaryWong: recommended the WG add advice to modify the metrics as new benefits 
> (and new abuses) become evident.  (good idea)
> AlanGreenberg: concern with Redirect metric.  Some redirects are beneficial 
> and not defensive
> Zahid Jamil: compliments on progress; ICANN has an obligation here; likes 
> Flexibility (Mary’s idea); how do registrants know which national laws apply 
> to them and to the Registrar and Registry they’re considering?  (described 
> our choice metric on visibility and clarity)
> Jonathan Robinson: Helpful and interesting perspective on new gTLD program.  
> Troubled with 3-year target, given ramp-up time and gradual delegations
> Michael Graham (IPC): Q18 proposed mission and purpose could support consumer 
> trust
> NPOCChair: gave anecdote of World Bank project to define 160 metrics for 
> poverty reduction projects.   When the WB asked citizens in developing 
> nations they got 500 metrics for poverty.  Are we asking regular consumers 
> about our metrics?  (contrasted WB process with ICANN’s pub comment process)
> JeffNeuman: Closed (single registrant) TLDs may not fit with open gTLDs when 
> doing many metrics.  (cited the Competition measures where we excluded closed 
> TLDs; said that trust and choice for internet users would apply to closed 
> TLDs)
> James Bladel: redirects: should get baseline data from legacy gTLDs today 
> (good idea)
> Jeremy Beal: interesting to look at “potential” consumers.  (cited choice 
> metrics on IDNs, languages, geographic diversity )
> Olivier CLB (ALAC): metrics should be seen as trends too.  Look at progress 
> over time.
> Chuck Gomes: this is a good example of M-S model working well.  Compliments.
> JeffNeuman: excellent work.
> 
> --
> Steve DelBianco
> Executive Director
> NetChoice
> http://www.NetChoice.org and http://blog.netchoice.org
> +1.202.420.7482
> 
> 
> From: Berry Cobb <mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
> Date: Wednesday, June 20, 2012 1:04 AM
> To: "gnso-consumercci-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-consumercci-dt@xxxxxxxxx>" 
> <gnso-consumercci-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-consumercci-dt@xxxxxxxxx>>
> Subject: [gnso-consumercci-dt] Latest Docs
> 
> Team,
> 
> Here are the latest PPT & Advice Letter.  I did not include the Public 
> Comment Review tool, as it barely changed today.
> 
> Thank you.  B
> 
> Berry Cobb
> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN)
> 720.839.5735
> mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> @berrycobb
> 
> 
> <GNSO CCTC Presentation Prague 2012.ppt>
> <Notes from Metrics presentation to GNSO Council.docx>