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

J. Scott Evans jsevans at adobe.com
Tue Oct 18 12:13:45 UTC 2016


George:

I am not going to argue statistics with you. You can say whatever you want
to discredit this input. We asked for input. We received it and it gave us
a clear direction. Just because the direction is in direction opposition
to your personal position is no reason to ignore the input. I would
suggest that you rally those who share your views the next time we do
outreach.

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








On 10/18/16, 5:08 AM, "gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org on behalf of George
Kirikos" <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org on behalf of icann at leap.com> wrote:

>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 Group¹s 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
>_______________________________________________
>gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
>gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg



More information about the gnso-rpm-wg mailing list