RE: [gnso-pro-wg] Updated survey: Please comment on this version ONLY

["Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Kristina,

 

 

 

>>>>>In short, given our time constraints, there have been numerous
opportunities for WG members and observers to propose questions, review
proposed questions, and otherwise comment.

 

JJN - I UNDERSTAND THE TIME CONTRAINTS, BUT A QUESTIONNAIRE THAT IS NOT
GEARED TOWARDS ACHIEIVING USEFUL RESULTS IS WORSE THAN NONE AT ALL.

 

>>>>>>>>We have not consulted with a professional survey organization
because the "survey" is not intended to accomplish the same goals as a
"true" survey, but is intended more as an information-gathering exercise
to

obtain informal input from stakeholders.  We discussed this very issue

in our last call and agreed to include the language in the header of the

survey:  "The survey is not designed to meet strict data gathering

standards but will be used to provide some baseline information from

which additional work may be developed."   

 

JJN - SOME OF US HAVE BEEN MEMBERS OF A NUMBER OF TASK FORCES AND
WORKING GROUPS IN ICANN BEFORE AND ALL OF THEM THAT HAVE DEVELOPED THESE
TYPES OF "QUESTIONNAIRES" HAVE SAID EXACTLY WHAT YOU HAVE.  THE PROBLEM
IS THAT ONCE RESPONSES ARE SUBMITTED, THOSE IN FAVOR OF WHAT THE
MAJROITY OF RESPONSES SAY

 

 

 

Specific Comments

 

1)  With respect to your definitions, please see prior response.  Using
the definitions without the context is meaningless to the respondent of
the questionnaire.  Not sure what you objections are in using the
definitions I wrote.  I did use the same parallels that were in the
modified Sunrise definition (i.e., allowing those to file claims based
on registered or unregistered marks) and explaining the other benefits
IP claimants got by filing a claim.  The purpose of filing a claim was
not to pre-register a mark, but rather to allow others to receive notice
about the claims prior to completing an application for a name.  Failing
to include this last part would be a huge deficiency in the
questionnaire especially for those that did not participate in .biz
launch or those that can't remember the policies from 7 years ago.

 

2)Definition of Sunrise:  I believe your original definition is
misleading in a number of areas and you should reconsider the modified
definition.  

 

3) Question 3:  The real issues with Q3 are (1) there is no definition
of what "adequately protected" and (2) the average manager of domain
portfolios will not remember or know what mechanism was used for each of
the TLDs and we do not provide them with guidance in this manner.  I am
NeuStar's portfolio manager and if I weren't in this group I wouldn't
know what mechanism .aero or .coop used for example. 

 

4) Questions 5-8:  My comments still stand in the draft.

 

5) Question 9:  I disagree that my point is covered in question 1.  I
think it should be more specific here.

 

6) Question 12:  Your revision seems fine to me.

 

7)                Question 18:  Again, this is an area a strongly object
to.  In order to make any comparisons as to whether the burden of
defensive registrations is any greater or less than other TLDs, it is
ESSENTIAL to look at the existing largest gTLDs.  For example, if a
company indicates that have 100 defensive registrations in .biz, .info,
and the other newer TLDs, what use is that information without comparing
it to how many defensive registrations in .com, .net and .org.  If for
example, the same company has 9,000 defensive registrations in .com,
that statistic has a lot of significance.  This would mean that of the
10,000 defensive registrations, only 10% of them were in the newer TLDs
and could be the result of the new TLDs.  If there are 100 defensive
registrations in the newer gTLDs, but only 50 in .com, .net and .org,
then that too would tell us something.  If you are going to ask the
questions, lets get some real data and real results.

 

Can you please state your specific objection to including the data.

 

8)  Questions 20-21:  The registries and registrars will have the right
to post impact statements as clearly provided for in the PDP process.  I
believe that the working group must consider the PoC reports in
analyzing the impact and ask registries and registrars to submit
separate statements on the RPMs separate and apart from this survey.
The questions you have developed are way underdeveloped, do not touch on
the relevant questions and will not yield any usable data. The group
must analyze the PoC reports and ask for addition data...not in the form
of a survey or questionnaire, but in any form the registries and
registrars choose to submit the information.  

 

9)  Questions 23-24:   It appears that Mike Palage, Tim Ruiz and others
on this list do not share your view of the SoW and the relevance of
these questions.  In the absence of consensus on these elements, they
must be removed.  

 

10) Questions 27-28:  Despite the intent, the questions do imply the
introduction of a Sunrise process over any other type of process.
Perhaps the questions should focus on whether there could be alternative
mechanisms introduced by new TLDs that are focused on specific
communities.

 

I look forward to other comments on this, but we still have a long way
to go on these questionnaires if we indeed want to issue the
questionnaires.   

 

 

 

-----Original Message-----

From: owner-gnso-pro-wg@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-pro-wg@xxxxxxxxx]

On Behalf Of Neuman, Jeff

Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2007 6:21 PM

To: Liz Williams; gnso-pro-wg@xxxxxxxxx

Cc: Neuman, Jeff

Subject: RE: [gnso-pro-wg] Updated survey: Please comment on this

version ONLY

 

All,

 

Please find enclosed some comments I have on the survey.  Again, I

apologize I could not have joined in person, but I am available after

today.

 

There are a number of issues with the proposed survey and I think work

still needs to be done.  There are lots of undefined terms and questions

that I believe are not likely to lead to objective results.  Have we

consulted with any professional survey organizations that could help us

develop a truly objective and meaningful survey?

 

 

I am available to discuss my comments at any time.

 

Thanks.

 

 

 

Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq. 

Sr. Director, Law, Advanced Services  & Business Development 

 

NeuStar, Inc. 

 

 

 

-----Original Message-----

From: owner-gnso-pro-wg@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-pro-wg@xxxxxxxxx]

On Behalf Of Liz Williams

Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2007 3:46 PM

To: gnso-pro-wg@xxxxxxxxx

Subject: [gnso-pro-wg] Updated survey: Please comment on this version

ONLY

 

 

The deadline for any additional comments by noon UTC Thursday 12 April.

Sooner is better.

 

I will send this out by COB Brussels time Thursday 12 April.  I will try

to have it posted to ICANN's public participation site and have it

distributed through to the various lists.

 

Liz

.....................................................

 

Liz Williams

Senior Policy Counselor

ICANN - Brussels

+32 2 234 7874 tel

+32 2 234 7848 fax

+32 497 07 4243 mob