[gnso-rpm-wg] FOR REVIEW & DISCUSSION: Provider and Survey Responses on TM-PDDRP

Tue Oct 18 12:08:16 UTC 2016

1. The sample size appears to be 16 (from Q2), so the statistical
margin of error for such a small sample size is enormous. The total
number of respondents who "overwhelmingly" believe that the PDDRP
should change is 5 (answer to Q10), which is actually 31.25% of those
who participated in the survey (5 of 16).

2. Many of the numbers don't add up. e.g.
(a) for Q4, there were 19 responses, despite the sample size being 16!
(b) for Q9, there were 6 responses, when the most there should have
been is 5 (given there were 5 "yes" responses in Q7).
(c) for Q10, there were 6 responses, when the most there should have
been is 5 (given there were 5 "no" responses in Q9).

There were only 9 visible answers (i.e. there was no Q1 shown in the
document), so it's disturbing that one-third of the survey results
don't add up properly. I'm not sure what software was used to display
the survey, but tools like SurveyMonkey, etc. usually allow
"conditional branching" or "skip logic" to only show some questions to
people who answer a prior question in a certain manner, etc.

https://www.surveymonkey.com/mp/tour/skiplogic/

Given the above, I'd place little weight on the results, either "for"
something or "against" something.

Sincerely,

George Kirikos
416-588-0269
http://www.leap.com/

On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 5:56 AM, J. Scott Evans <jsevans at adobe.com> wrote:
> Wow. The respondents seem to really believe (overwhelmingly so) that we need
> to amend the PDDRP to make is useable.
>
> Thoughts? Discussion?
>
> J. Scott
>
> J. Scott Evans | Associate General Counsel - Trademarks, Copyright, Domains
> & Marketing |
>
> Adobe
>
> 345 Park Avenue
>
> San Jose, CA 95110
> 408.536.5336 (tel), 408.709.6162 (cell)
> jsevans at adobe.com
>
> www.adobe.com
>
>
>
>
> From: <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of David Tait
> <david.tait at icann.org>
> Date: Tuesday, October 18, 2016 at 2:36 AM
> To: "gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>
>
> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] FOR REVIEW & DISCUSSION: Provider and Survey
> Responses on TM-PDDRP
>
> Dear All
>
>
>
> Further to my previous email I attach a further revised version of this
> document which (following a request from the co-chairs) now contains the
> graphs once again.
>
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
> David
>
>
>
> From: David Tait <david.tait at icann.org>
> Date: Friday, 14 October 2016 at 15:08
> To: <gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>
> Cc: Mary Wong <mary.wong at icann.org>
> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] FOR REVIEW & DISCUSSION: Provider and Survey
> Responses on TM-PDDRP
>
>
>
> Dear Jeff
>
>
>
> Further to your previous email I am pleased to attach a consolidated version
> of the responses received.
>
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
> David
>
>
>
> From: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman at comlaude.com>
> Date: Thursday, October 13, 2016 at 11:09
> To: Mary Wong <mary.wong at icann.org>, "gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org"
> <gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>
> Subject: RE: [gnso-rpm-wg] FOR REVIEW & DISCUSSION: Provider and Survey
> Responses on TM-PDDRP
>
>
>
> Thanks Mary for this.  Is there a way to combine all of the written
> responses in the summary document as well especially to questions 6, 7, 8,
> 10.
>
>
>
> Jeffrey J. Neuman
>
> Senior Vice President |Valideus USA| Com Laude USA
>
> 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600
>
> Mclean, VA 22102, United States
>
> E: jeff.neuman at valideus.com or jeff.neuman at comlaude.com
>
> T: +1.703.635.7514
>
> M: +1.202.549.5079
>
> @Jintlaw
>
>
>
>
>
> From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org]
> On Behalf Of Mary Wong
> Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2016 3:49 PM
> To: gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
> Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] FOR REVIEW & DISCUSSION: Provider and Survey
> Responses on TM-PDDRP
>
>
>
> Dear all,
>
>
>
> You will recall that the Working Group had agreed to resume deliberations
> over the Trademark Post-Delegation Dispute Resolution Procedure (TM-PDDRP)
> after receipt of responses from the TM-PDDRP providers and closure of the
> Community Survey.
>
>
>
> We received responses from two providers – FORUM and WIPO, for which we
> thank Brian Beckham, Ty Gray, Daniel Legerski and their colleagues. We also
> collected sixteen community member responses to the TM-PDDRP Community
> Survey, including from registrars and intellectual property rights-holders.
> All the responses, as well as an aggregated data report on the Community
> Survey, have now been uploaded to the Working Group wiki space here:
> https://community.icann.org/x/ugqsAw[community.icann.org].
>
>
>
> The Working Group co-chairs have asked that Working Group members review
> these responses in time for our next call on 19 October 2016, where, if time
> permits, we will start discussing them. At the moment, we anticipate that a
> fuller review, including community participation, will be the focus of the
> Working Group’s open meeting at ICANN57 in Hyderabad. This will allow us to
> complete this initial review of the TM-PDDRP shortly thereafter.
>
>
>
> FYI the tentative date and time of the open Working Group meeting at ICANN57
> is currently Monday 7 November (Day 5 of the meeting), from 11.00-12.30
> local Hyderabad time. As with all these sessions, remote participation
> facilities will be made available for those who will not be present in
> Hyderabad.
>
>
>
> Thanks and cheers
>
> Mary
>
>
>
>
>
> Mary Wong
>
> Senior Policy Director
>
> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
>
> Email: mary.wong at icann.org
>
> Telephone: +1-603-5744889
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> <ACL>
>
> _______________________________________________
> gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
> gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg