RE: [gnso-dt-wg] Collecting Facts

["Mike Rodenbaugh" <mxr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks Marilyn.  Can you identify the specific types of info you think
should go into an FAQ, other than the definiions and link to the Issues
Report that is already in the preamble?  I think many of us feel that is
enough background info, but it could be condensed/colored/etc. by
respective Constituencies in sending the RFI to its members.

Of course we are aiming to get statistically significant information
through this process.  As Bruce Tonkin and Jeff Neumann have pointed
out, this is just a start.  I also appreciate Tim Ruiz' comments that,
in the end, we may not have absolute proof of anything but will have to
draw reasonable inferences from the data we get.

Mike Rodenbaugh

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-dt-wg@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-dt-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Marilyn Cade
Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2007 5:55 AM
To: gnso-dt-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Cc: bclist@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-dt-wg] Collecting Facts

I appreciate Bruce's post. ICANN's process of data gathering are just
developing, and it appears that there should be some standard data that
is
gathered, and published on a regular basis, in a transparent and neutral
manner. That is a longer term discussion within the GNSO, it seems to
me. 

For the purposes of this exercise, in order to get individual companies
who
are experiencing tasting, or its implications and aftermath to respond,
it
will be helpful if the questions have an accompanying informative
/explanation, similar to the way that surveys are routinely conducted. I
am
assuming that there is interest in getting a broader response from
outside
those who attend ICANN meetings, such as by distributing the
questionnaires
related to user experiences to as wide a distribution of users/affected
registrants as possible. The IPC may recall the challenges of explaining
the
earlier WHOIS survey to respondents who were not familiar with ICANN. I
certainly do, as a member of the Business Constituency. A short
explanatory
document was needed. 

Often, when distributing questionnaires, it is helpful to have a FAQ.
The
benefit of having it developed by staff, supported by this ad hoc group
is
that it would be standardized and uniform. 

As history will indicate, I co-chaired the initial WHOIS Task Force,
with
Tony Harris as co-chair. The questionnaire that we distributed, with
assistance from the ICANN staff resulted in just over 3,000 responses. 

Has the group discussed the kind of return numbers that they are
seeking,
and whether they are looking for 'illustrative examples', versus high
numbers of returns? Either approach can be valid, based on the purpose
of
the survey/questionnaire, and how the data will be used. 

For instance, as I understand the purpose of this exercise, it is to
gather
more data. Recognizing that it will be difficult to gather high numbers
of
responses from users, the purpose of this particular data gathering
exercise
might be to gather as much data as possible from users, while
recognizing
that it is merely a 'sample'. 

I agree with Bruce that these 'examples' will help to identify patterns.


Regards, 

Marilyn Cade
Observer


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-dt-wg@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-dt-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Bruce Tonkin
Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2007 12:11 AM
To: gnso-dt-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-dt-wg] Collecting Facts

Hello Mike,

> 
> Bruce, thanks.  I have discussed with Olof and he will engage ICANN
> Staff in hopes of gathering data along these lines.  Others 
> on the list
> have already begun some work in regards to your scenarios #2 
> and #3, at
> least, but you lay out very specific data that seem achievable and
> certainly would be useful.  
> 

Note that I suggest data be collected in such a way as that it is
statistically significant - rather than a series of individual cases.

Ie I am sure there are examples where a name used for tasting violates a
trademark - the question is how often.  Likewise there would certainly
be examples where a registrant cannot obtain their desired name as the
name is currently being tasted and subsequently deleted several days
later.

The benefit of examples is that it gives you a pattern that you can then
use to do statistical analysis.  It is the next step that is usually not
taken in the GNSO policy debates.  We have seen this in the WHOIS debate
where both sides of the debate provide examples, but there has been
little (apart from the work done by SSAC) statistical analysis to
identify the size of the problem.

Regards,
Bruce Tonkin