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

Tue Oct 18 12:47:13 UTC 2016

George:

I apologize if you feel attacked. That was not my intent. It was, however,
my intent to point out that our group reached out to the community for
feedback. We got that feedback and it gave us a directive. If we applied
your same argument, I could say that the anti-IP sentiments of the NCUC
have been championed for over 18 years by no more than 10 people who claim
to represent all non-contracted, non-commercial parties. That said, and
despite only seeing the same voices raise the same concerns time and time
again, we have listened, debated, re-debated, and sought input. The
issues/concerns of these parties are always on the table despite only
being put there by a very small group of people. So, I think we should
take into account the call for change in the PDDRP and take action. Others
may disagree and our consensus may be that we should not take action.

Finally, I follow your work in many working groups and, IMHO, you have a
clear anti-IP animus and I do believe that flavors your positions. I may
be wrong, but I am entitled to my opinion and I can express it. It is not
meant to insult you or demean your positions. It is meant to call a spade
a spade. I am pro-IP and proud of it. I will advocate for trademark owners
when not acting in my capacity of chair. As Chair, it is my duty to make
sure ALL viewpoints are heard and considered, even those with which I
strongly disagree.

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, 5:36 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:

>J. Scott:
>
>What are you talking about? I've already made it clear (during the
>calls) that I'm in *favour* of improving the PDDRP! Perhaps you've not
>been paying attention. For you to attack my earlier response on the
>basis that the "input" is in "opposition to (my) personal position" is
>ridiculous. I would have made the comments I made regardless of my own
>position, for the clear and logical reasons I stated, which had
>absolutely nothing to do with the actual answers to the survey but
>instead were based on (1) total number of responses and (2) numbers
>not adding up properly.
>
>Furthermore, to suggest that *anyone* in the group should "rally those
>who share your views the next time" is entirely inappropriate, in my
>opinion. It's suggesting that instead of this working group doing a
>"scientific" survey, a *representative* sample of the population of
>stakeholders, that folks should instead be engaged in electioneering
>in order to artificially manipulate the outcome. For that suggestion
>to come from one of the co-chairs of this working group is even more
>disturbing.
>
>Lastly, I properly noted that there were a total of 5 people (out of
>16 survey participants) believe that the PDDRP should change. That's
>31.25%, a mathematical fact. You might label that an "overwhelming"
>response and a "clear direction", but I disagree, for the reasons I
>stated in my first email, and say so *despite* my own personal opinion
>on the issue.
>
>Sincerely,
>
>George Kirikos
>416-588-0269
>http://www.leap.com/
>
>
>On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 8:13 AM, J. Scott Evans <jsevans at adobe.com> wrote:
>> 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
>>
>_______________________________________________
>gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
>gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg