RE: [gnso-dt-wg] Bigpulse IPC survey

["Jothan Frakes" <jfrakes@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Kristina-

It seems like that verbiage in question 7 to advise what to do in the next 
question should be in question 8 but it is certainly not worth a battle over it.

-Jothan

Jothan Frakes
  
Oversee Domain Services
......................................................
 
515 S. Flower Street, Suite 4400
Los Angeles, CA 90071
direct +1.213.925.5206
cell +1.206.355.0230
jfrakes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
www.domainsponsor.com 
 
Confidentiality Warning: This e-mail contains information intended only for the 
use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this e-mail is 
not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering 
it to the intended recipient, any dissemination, publication or copying of this 
e-mail is strictly prohibited. The sender does not accept any responsibility 
for any loss, disruption or damage to your data or computer system that may 
occur while using data contained in, or transmitted with, this e-mail. If you 
have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify us by return 
e-mail. Thank you and have a nice day.  No lawyers were harmed in the creation 
of this disclaimer.
 

-----Original Message-----
From: Rosette, Kristina [mailto:krosette@xxxxxxx] 
Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2007 7:10 AM
To: Jothan Frakes; gnso-dt-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-dt-wg] Bigpulse IPC survey

Jothan,

Apology accepted.

Question 7 has a "jump" to question 9 if participants answer "decreased or 
remained constant"  The FAQ for question 7 has - since Friday - read:  "This 
question is designed to identify whether brand owners are experiencing an 
upward trend, downward trend, or no change in the number of instances of domain 
tasting over the past year. Please indicate if you or your organization has 
noticed such a trend. If you answered "decreased" or "remained constant", 
please skip to question 9." (The great majority of participants have completed 
the poll since the FAQ was revised.)

There is absolutely NO reason for someone who answers question 7 with 
"decreased" or "remained constant" to answer question 8.  The data for 
questions 7 and 8 do not reflect any user confusion. 

Accordingly, there is nothing to correct and nothing to discuss. 

Kristina 


-----Original Message-----
From: Jothan Frakes [mailto:jfrakes@xxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2007 4:30 AM
To: Rosette, Kristina; gnso-dt-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-dt-wg] Bigpulse IPC survey

Hi Kristina-

I appreciate our conversation on Thursday where you explained that this was 
something that could be resolved, and your communication with ICANN regarding 
an attempt to remove the confusion was not entirely clear on the "jump ahead".

As I also explained in our conversation on Thursday, I have a deep 
understanding and appreciation for intellectual property interests and 
intellectual property representatives.  

The "authentic" comment was not antagonism, nor meant in any way to sully the 
fine reputation of anyone in the intellectual property community or their 
representatives -- which I have the deepest respect for.  I regret any offense, 
it was completely unintended.

More to focus the intent on that choice of wording, it seems to me that there 
is more opportunity for allowing "authentic" response on question 8 as opposed 
to funneling responses that might provide a drastically distorted outcome.  

The word "if" at the beginning of the question in harmony with the sentence 
"click 'Jump ahead to next Question' if you experienced no increase or did not 
perceive any" would go a long way to remove the confusion for those that 
experienced a decrease or none in the previous question or opportunity for 
capture of a very distorted picture from the data gathered on that question.

It would be best to correct this if possible, and I am optimistic that perhaps 
this can be accomplished in the call tomorrow.

-jothan

Jothan Frakes
  
Oversee Domain Services
......................................................
We've moved!  Make a note of it
515 S. Flower Street, Suite 4400
Los Angeles, CA 90071
direct +1.213.925.5206
cell +1.206.355.0230
jfrakes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
www.domainsponsor.com 
 
Confidentiality Warning: This e-mail contains information intended only for the 
use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this e-mail is 
not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering 
it to the intended recipient, any dissemination, publication or copying of this 
e-mail is strictly prohibited. The sender does not accept any responsibility 
for any loss, disruption or damage to your data or computer system that may 
occur while using data contained in, or transmitted with, this e-mail. If you 
have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify us by return 
e-mail. Thank you and have a nice day.
 

-----Original Message-----
From: Rosette, Kristina [mailto:krosette@xxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2007 7:34 PM
To: Jothan Frakes; gnso-dt-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-dt-wg] Bigpulse IPC survey

Jothan, 

As I told you when we spoke last Thursday, the intent of question 8 is to 
confirm whether a perceived increase is, in fact, an actual increase.  I also 
explained that it had been our intent to include "jumps" to allow participants 
to jump to the next relevant question, and, based on what you described, the 
automatic "jump" to question 9 for persons answering "decline" or "remained 
constant" to question 7 may have been inadvertently excluded. 

When I contacted ICANN staff on Friday, I was told that the "jump" from 7 to 9 
was already in place and no change was needed.  As an additional precaution, we 
added a corresponding instruction to FAQ 7.  No further revision is necessary.

If your expression of "hope [that] brand manager[s] or intellectual property 
representative[s] would" answer "authentically" is intended to insinuate that 
brand managers and intellectual property representatives will not answer 
authentically, that insinuation is unjustified and inappropriate.  

Kristina 

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-dt-wg@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-dt-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf 
Of Jothan Frakes
Sent: Friday, September 07, 2007 11:09 AM
To: gnso-dt-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [gnso-dt-wg] Bigpulse IPC survey

Hi-

Although I am not an IPC member, I was grateful that the survey allowed any 
brand manager to submit I took some time to fill out the new IPC survey for my 
company's brands and our experience with enforcing our brand.

In filling out the IPC survey with respect to my company's brand names and 
intellectual property, we had experienced a decrease in occurrences of our 
brand name being tasted, and I indicated this fact in question 7.

When I got to question 8, it was assuming that I'd answered that it had 
increased, or so it seems to the initial person taking the survey.

=======================
 7. Over the past year, has the number of tasted domain names that  incorporate 
or use your brand(s)/mark(s)... 
 This question is designed to identify whether brand owners are experiencing  
an upward trend, downward trend, or no change in the number of instances of  
domain tasting over the past year. Please indicate if you or your  organization 
has noticed such a trend.  

 X  Decreased    
    Increased    
    Remained constant
=======================

This had decreased for our brand, so I answered authentically, as I would hope 
any brand manager or intellectual property representative would.

Despite the answer, the next question simply assumes an increase, and the 
answers aren't crafted allow for someone to indicate that they have experienced 
a decline in the amount of such activity or no such activity. 

So even someone responding authentically with a decrease or no change has their 
answer captured to reflect either that there was an increase, or that they 
perceived an increase.  This has the opportunity to be immensely confusing, as 
it forces a response that contradicts 2/3 of the previous answers.

Here is how question 8 is worded currently:
=======================
 8. You indicated the number has increased. Do believe that the number has  
remained constant, but you are simply more aware of tasting? 
 This question is designed to identify whether a reported perceived increase  
by a responding party is, in fact, an increase in the instances of domain  
tasting, or instead a perceived increase based on the increased flow of  
information regarding the practice of domain tasting over the past year.
 Please indicate if you believe the perceived increase is also an actual  
increase.  
      
 Select ONE   
 
    Yes (remained constant, just more aware)    
    No (tasting has increased in real terms) 

=======================

I spoke with Kristina about this potential to confuse a person surveyed, and 
Question #8 sounded more like the intention was that this question was to 
clarify where people may have responded in question 7 that they had experienced 
an actual increase, for if they thought it was actual or perceived.  So 
altering the question might help to focus in that direction.

"If you indicated an increase..." seems a better way to ask this question to 
match the stated intent, and it seems to me like the survey should capture an 
additional answer, like "Not Applicable (not an issue or that there was a 
decline)".

It seems like it should either be reworded a bit to be more appropriate to what 
Kristina had intended, and a person responding to 66% of the previous question 
should be skipped ahead to question 9 or the question above should be added to 
question 8.

I'd suggest is a slight tweak to the question #8 and the responses to allow for 
those that have experienced a decline in the activity, or even had experienced 
no such activity to have their responses also captured appropriately.

Here is how question 8 could be worded to be less confusing or not come across 
as entirely biased:
=======================
 8. If you indicated the number has increased in the previous question, do  you 
believe that the number has remained constant, but you are simply more  aware 
of tasting? 
 This question is designed to identify whether a reported perceived increase  
by a responding party is, in fact, an increase in the instances of domain  
tasting, or instead a perceived increase based on the increased flow of  
information regarding the practice of domain tasting over the past year.
 Please indicate if you believe the perceived increase is also an actual  
increase, or respond with Not Applicable if you did not see an actual or  
perceived increase, or if you experienced or perceived a decrease.  
      
 Select ONE   
 
    Yes (remained constant, just more aware)    
    No (tasting has increased in real terms) 
    Not Applicable (not an issue or that there was a decline)  

=======================

I realize Olaf and Kristina did numerous iterations of this survey, but can 
this change be made so that there is less bias inflected (perceived or real)?

-Jothan

Jothan Frakes
  
Oversee Domain Services
......................................................
 
515 S. Flower Street, Suite 4400
Los Angeles, CA 90071
direct +1.213.925.5206
cell +1.206.355.0230
jfrakes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
www.domainsponsor.com 
 
Confidentiality Warning: This e-mail contains information intended only for the 
use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this e-mail is 
not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering 
it to the intended recipient, any dissemination, publication or copying of this 
e-mail is strictly prohibited. The sender does not accept any responsibility 
for any loss, disruption or damage to your data or computer system that may 
occur while using data contained in, or transmitted with, this e-mail. If you 
have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify us by return 
e-mail. Thank you and have a nice day.  No lawyers were harmed in the creation 
of this disclaimer.
 

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-dt-wg@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-dt-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf 
Of Olof Nordling
Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2007 4:49 AM
To: gnso-dt-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [gnso-dt-wg] RE: Domain Tasting ad hoc group - Action points from call 
5 September

Dear all,
FYI: The IPC survey (see item 1 below) is now online, with a link from the 
ICANN announcement at 
http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-2-10aug07.htm
Best regards
Olof

-----Original Message-----
From: Olof Nordling [mailto:olof.nordling@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: den 5 september 2007 18:09
To: 'gnso-dt-wg@xxxxxxxxx'
Subject: Domain Tasting ad hoc group - Action points from call 5 September

Dear all,
Please find draft action items from today's call below.
Best regards
Olof

----------------------------------------------
Action points, conference call 5 September 2007

1. The IPC survey is online via BigPulse, awaiting the addition of a link to it 
from the ICANN RFI announcement notice. The posting of this link is in process 
within ICANN - Patrick J or Olof N will notify the DT and the Council lists 
when the link is up.  

2. Kristina R has sent the UDRP provider questions to the three recipients, 
with reply deadline 20 September, and already received one response.
Kristina R will ask permission from those responding to make individual 
responses public.  

3. Jothan F has received three responses from registrars about their 
proprietary use of AGP. Additional time for responses granted until 15 
September.

4. Danny Y has not yet received zone file data for a statistical study. Paul S 
is reminded to supply such data as agreed.  

5. Now that the holiday season is largely over, the constituencies'
memberships should be reminded about the RFI and the deadline of 15 September.

6. Mike R will send the agreed questions to VeriSign shortly. 

7. Regarding ccTLD experiences, Patrick J is expecting interesting information 
from the .PL domain tasting approach in the near future. Patrick J is also 
compiling an overview of the ccTLD responses.

8. Plan: to have most factual data available by 15 September (exceptions:
for UDRP replies 20 September; for IPC survey 25 September) and to have a 
report finalized by 4 October. Olof N will provide a "strawman report" for next 
call.

Participants
Mike Rodenbaugh - chair CBUC (Council) Kristina Rosette - IPC (Council) Jeff 
Neuman - gTLD Registry constituency Jothan Frakes - Registrar constituency Jeff 
Eckhaus - Registrar constituency Danny Younger - NCUC 

ICANN Staff
Olof Nordling - Manager, Policy Development Coordination Patrick Jones - 
Registry Liaison Manager Glen de Saint Géry - GNSO Secretariat