[gnso-rpm-wg] A few clarifications on the TM-PDDRP Community Survey
J. Scott Evans
jsevans at adobe.com
Tue Oct 18 16:37:12 UTC 2016
Thanks for this additional insight Mary.
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, 7:19 AM, "Mary Wong" <mary.wong at icann.org> wrote:
>Hello everyone,
>
>In light of a few questions that have been raised about the survey, staff
>hopes the following notes will be helpful:
>
>- The initial email solicitation that was sent to Supporting
>Organizations, Advisory Committees, Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies
>(SO/ACdid not specify a date by which the responses were expected, though
>a subsequent note mentioned mid-September, and we kept the survey open
>for some time after that date.
>
>- Question 1 of the survey asked for the respondent’s name and details
>(though they could choose not to provide them) this isn’t reflected in
>the consolidated responses document, which starts from Question 2
>(SO/AC/SG/C affiliation).
>
>- Not all respondents noted their SO/AC/SG/C affiliation (if any); of
>those that did, I believe we got responses from 1 Registries, 5
>Registrars, 3 IPC, 2 BC, 1 ccNSO, and 1 At-Large member (if I recall
>correctly). Several respondents also answered that they represented
>trademark owners.
>
>- Certain questions were predicated on a “If your answer to the preceding
>question is Yes” basis; however, a respondent could choose to also
>provide examples and details even if they didn’t answer Yes to the
>previous question.
>
>Finally, the Working Group may recall that a few members volunteered
>several weeks ago to compile a Google Document comprising real/observed
>experiences with perceived registry behavior that they believe may come
>within the purview of the TM-PDDRP. That document has been circulated for
>a last review amongst the group of volunteers, and we hope to share it
>with the full Working Group after the call tomorrow, if not before.
>Perhaps the Working Group can review that document prior to deciding
>whether or not to recirculate the survey.
>
>We hope this information is of assistance.
>
>Cheers
>Mary
>
>On 10/18/16, 09:53, "gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org on behalf of Steve
>Levy" <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org on behalf of
>slevy at accentlawgroup.com> wrote:
>
> +1 Brian
>
>
>
> On 10/18/16, 9:42 AM, "gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org on behalf of
>
> Winterfeldt, Brian J." <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org on behalf of
>
> BWinterfeldt at mayerbrown.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> >Dear J. Scott and all:
>
> >
>
> >I would also support attempting to obtain additional input on the
>survey
>
> >questions by re-circulating. When the survey was first circulated I
>
> >think there may have been some miscommunication or lack of clear
>
> >communication as to when prospective survey respondents must submit
>
> >responses before the survey closed. Given that there are still other
>open
>
> >areas in connection with the PDDRP, I don't see any harm in giving an
>
> >extended opportunity for additional input on this.
>
> >
>
> >With respect to the responses that have been collected to date, I
>agree
>
> >that despite the relatively small sample size, this Working Group
>should
>
> >not dismiss this input out of hand. This threatens the credibility
>of
>
> >our work. We should spend the time to thoroughly review and analyze
>the
>
> >input and discuss whether it makes sense to revisit preliminary
>
> >conclusions regarding the PDDRP. I am not suggesting we will
>ultimately
>
> >change course in terms of the conclusions, but believe we should be
>
> >deliberate in our approach.
>
> >
>
> >Best regards,
>
> >
>
> >Brian
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >Brian J. Winterfeldt
>
> >Co-Head of Global Brand Management and Internet Practice
>
> >Mayer Brown LLP
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >-----Original Message-----
>
> >From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org
>
> >[mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of J. Scott Evans
>
> >Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2016 9:22 AM
>
> >To: George Kirikos
>
> >Cc: gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
>
> >Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] FOR REVIEW & DISCUSSION: Provider and
>Survey
>
> >Responses on TM-PDDRP
>
> >
>
> >Query to our group. If the majority feels the sample size is just too
>
> >small, what should we do? Ask for additional input by recirculating
>the
>
> >survey. Taking George's points and ignore the survey b/c the sample
>is too
>
> >small? Do other have another alternative?
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >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
>
>
>>https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.prote
>>ction.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dwww.adobe.com-26data-3D01-257&d=DQIGog&c=FmY1u
>>3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w3xl7xb5
>>cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=Cb2kDBPqnWowtSuMWqQgGAWtVS5jFhKsGVayuIR35mg&s=Wv7WVFaA5vsdM
>>zKGOFooBWnU4HPs409ptkDvJMwHoT0&e=
>
>
>>C01%7CBwinterfeldt%40mayerbrown.com%7Ccad701c35dc3416845bd08d3f759bebb%7C
>>0
>
>
>>9131022b7854e6d8d42916975e51262%7C0&sdata=FLB5lBUu8KJ452nIHswQDuHxLero4h4
>>0
>
> >8S6BwADCfwk%3D&reserved=0
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >On 10/18/16, 6:18 AM, "George Kirikos" <icann at leap.com> wrote:
>
> >
>
> >>J. Scott:
>
> >>
>
> >>Your first email asked for "Thoughts?" and "Discussion"? Then, after
>
> >>receiving my thoughts and discussion on the survey, you attempted to
>
> >>delegitimize those thoughts and discussion by saying what you said:
>
> >>
>
>
>>>https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.prot
>>>ection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dhttp-253A-252F-252Fmm.icann&d=DQIGog&c=FmY1u
>>>3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w3xl7xb
>>>5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=Cb2kDBPqnWowtSuMWqQgGAWtVS5jFhKsGVayuIR35mg&s=JSrtf22S0lY
>>>p_TXvmmSkU2_yYDrUoKBZQ-q8_w3IKjk&e= .
>
>
>>>org%2Fpipermail%2Fgnso-rpm-wg%2F2016-October%2F000685.html&data=01%7C01%
>>>7
>
>
>>>CBwinterfeldt%40mayerbrown.com%7Ccad701c35dc3416845bd08d3f759bebb%7C0913
>>>1
>
>
>>>022b7854e6d8d42916975e51262%7C0&sdata=VIUCDoME2%2FjmgMFmQqmykgl8zJEZJU6O
>>>v
>
> >>zU%2FcwVRe%2Fs%3D&reserved=0
>
> >>
>
> >>"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."
>
> >>
>
> >>with the entire basis of that statement ("Just because...") based
>on a
>
> >>false premise that I'm against changing the PDDRP. A false premise.
>I
>
> >>simply pointed out simple truths, a total sample size of only 16,
>with
>
> >>only 5 in favour of PDDRP changes. If those observations were so
>
> >>"dangerous" that you "couldn't argue statistics", but instead sought
>
> >>to attack the person making them, that says a lot about the strength
>
> >>of your arguments.
>
> >>
>
> >>And then you made the reckless suggestion that folks should be
>
> >>attempting to artificially affect the outcome of the PDP by
>"rallying"
>
> >>people who "share your views".
>
> >>
>
> >>I don't have any "anti-IP animus" --- I've long been opposed to
>
> >>cybersquatting! I've even assisted TM holders pursue
>cybersquatters. I
>
> >>am against *over-reaching* by some TM holders and am in favour of
>
> >>*balanced* policy that protects the interests of domain name
>
> >>registrants, in accordance with established law.
>
> >>
>
> >>Stop trying to label people, and instead listen to the arguments and
>
> >>facts they put forward.
>
> >>
>
> >>Here were the undeniable FACTS: 16 total response, 5 in favour of
>PDDRP
>
> >>changes.
>
> >>
>
> >>In my view, as I said before, the sample size is too small, and
>there
>
> >>were flaws in the survey where the numbers didn't add up properly.
>
> >>
>
> >>Sincerely,
>
> >>
>
> >>George Kirikos
>
> >>416-588-0269
>
>
>>>https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.prot
>>>ection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dhttp-253A-252F-252Fwww.leap&d=DQIGog&c=FmY1u
>>>3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w3xl7xb
>>>5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=Cb2kDBPqnWowtSuMWqQgGAWtVS5jFhKsGVayuIR35mg&s=cYA4KTitDA-
>>>lyJ_1Ip7sdCAxeO1Aks9SSGiLy8t61Q0&e= .
>
>
>>>com%2F&data=01%7C01%7CBwinterfeldt%40mayerbrown.com%7Ccad701c35dc3416845
>>>b
>
>
>>>d08d3f759bebb%7C09131022b7854e6d8d42916975e51262%7C0&sdata=tWfU%2BStelCV
>>>q
>
> >>yAuxWiUPXf1BS0BKBHUMUW1ztiwBJkY%3D&reserved=0
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 8:47 AM, J. Scott Evans <jsevans at adobe.com>
>
> >>wrote:
>
> >>> 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
>
> >>>
>
>
>>>>https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.pro
>>>>tection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dwww.adobe.com-26data-3D01&d=DQIGog&c=FmY1u
>>>>3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w3xl7x
>>>>b5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=Cb2kDBPqnWowtSuMWqQgGAWtVS5jFhKsGVayuIR35mg&s=fvhovw3o3
>>>>b2LHI5FemyH8GoupbhL2hRClmUjF0lnYxk&e=
>
>
>>>>%7C01%7CBwinterfeldt%40mayerbrown.com%7Ccad701c35dc3416845bd08d3f759beb
>>>>b
>
>
>>>>%7C09131022b7854e6d8d42916975e51262%7C0&sdata=FLB5lBUu8KJ452nIHswQDuHxL
>>>>e
>
> >>>ro4h408S6BwADCfwk%3D&reserved=0
>
> >>>
>
> >>>
>
> >>>
>
> >>>
>
> >>>
>
> >>>
>
> >>>
>
> >>>
>
> >>> 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
>
>
>>>>>https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.pr
>>>>>otection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dhttp-253A-252F-252Fwww.lea&d=DQIGog&c=Fm
>>>>>Y1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w3
>>>>>xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=Cb2kDBPqnWowtSuMWqQgGAWtVS5jFhKsGVayuIR35mg&s=CENz
>>>>>SQO-UItQAZFzgA4Ifp--PSIZhkJjki5JzxQbpXM&e=
>
>
>>>>>p.com%2F&data=01%7C01%7CBwinterfeldt%40mayerbrown.com%7Ccad701c35dc341
>>>>>6
>
>
>>>>>845bd08d3f759bebb%7C09131022b7854e6d8d42916975e51262%7C0&sdata=tWfU%2B
>>>>>S
>
> >>>>telCVqyAuxWiUPXf1BS0BKBHUMUW1ztiwBJkY%3D&reserved=0
>
> >>>>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>>>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
>
> >>>>>
>
>
>>>>>>https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.p
>>>>>>rotection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dwww.adobe.com-26data-3D&d=DQIGog&c=FmY
>>>>>>1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w3
>>>>>>xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=Cb2kDBPqnWowtSuMWqQgGAWtVS5jFhKsGVayuIR35mg&s=WWm
>>>>>>ZRfbYWC8h77-UrwmWK4CLhzfKqvi6VmmytPGE6OQ&e=
>
>
>>>>>>01%7C01%7CBwinterfeldt%40mayerbrown.com%7Ccad701c35dc3416845bd08d3f75
>>>>>>9
>
>
>>>>>>bebb%7C09131022b7854e6d8d42916975e51262%7C0&sdata=FLB5lBUu8KJ452nIHsw
>>>>>>Q
>
> >>>>>DuHxLero4h408S6BwADCfwk%3D&reserved=0
>
> >>>>>
>
> >>>>>
>
> >>>>>
>
> >>>>>
>
> >>>>>
>
> >>>>>
>
> >>>>>
>
> >>>>>
>
> >>>>> 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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.
>>>>>>>protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dhttps-253A-252F-252Fwww&d=DQIGog&c=F
>>>>>>>mY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c
>>>>>>>2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=Cb2kDBPqnWowtSuMWqQgGAWtVS5jFhKsGVayuIR35mg&s
>>>>>>>=bAn0luLoLGcRRgPR3B60zmziY7y16bRJTQZYELVwjjM&e= .
>
>
>>>>>>>surveymonkey.com%2Fmp%2Ftour%2Fskiplogic%2F&data=01%7C01%7CBwinterfe
>>>>>>>l
>
>
>>>>>>>dt%40mayerbrown.com%7Ccad701c35dc3416845bd08d3f759bebb%7C09131022b78
>>>>>>>5
>
>
>>>>>>>4e6d8d42916975e51262%7C0&sdata=vl6Lhl21GVSzrgY1nnJklWCQxvJk%2FElc2yi
>>>>>>>9
>
> >>>>>>flUzNx0%3D&reserved=0
>
> >>>>>>
>
> >>>>>>Given the above, I'd place little weight on the results, either
>"for"
>
> >>>>>>something or "against" something.
>
> >>>>>>
>
> >>>>>>Sincerely,
>
> >>>>>>
>
> >>>>>>George Kirikos
>
> >>>>>>416-588-0269
>
>
>>>>>>>https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.
>>>>>>>protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dhttp-253A-252F-252Fwww.l&d=DQIGog&c=
>>>>>>>FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6
>>>>>>>c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=Cb2kDBPqnWowtSuMWqQgGAWtVS5jFhKsGVayuIR35mg&
>>>>>>>s=j8QIgHGA8iVduJZpOCzS-M7dunw3vjNpc4x4vKCQKrI&e=
>
>
>>>>>>>eap.com%2F&data=01%7C01%7CBwinterfeldt%40mayerbrown.com%7Ccad701c35d
>>>>>>>c
>
>
>>>>>>>3416845bd08d3f759bebb%7C09131022b7854e6d8d42916975e51262%7C0&sdata=t
>>>>>>>W
>
> >>>>>>fU%2BStelCVqyAuxWiUPXf1BS0BKBHUMUW1ztiwBJkY%3D&reserved=0
>
> >>>>>>
>
> >>>>>>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
>
> >>>>>>>
>
> >>>>>>>
>
>
>>>>>>>>https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks
>>>>>>>>.protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dwww.adobe.com-26dat&d=DQIGog&c=FmY
>>>>>>>>1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2
>>>>>>>>w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=Cb2kDBPqnWowtSuMWqQgGAWtVS5jFhKsGVayuIR35mg&s
>>>>>>>>=_HBcYonZABN5yLbgVU5ilIoslEz_mfS7tq7_I1eb67Q&e=
>
>
>>>>>>>>a=01%7C01%7CBwinterfeldt%40mayerbrown.com%7Ccad701c35dc3416845bd08d
>>>>>>>>3
>
>
>>>>>>>>f759bebb%7C09131022b7854e6d8d42916975e51262%7C0&sdata=FLB5lBUu8KJ45
>>>>>>>>2
>
> >>>>>>>nIHswQDuHxLero4h408S6BwADCfwk%3D&reserved=0
>
> >>>>>>>
>
> >>>>>>>
>
> >>>>>>>
>
> >>>>>>>
>
> >>>>>>> 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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks
>>>>>>>>.protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dhttps-253A-252F-252Fcom&d=DQIGog&c
>>>>>>>>=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2
>>>>>>>>x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=Cb2kDBPqnWowtSuMWqQgGAWtVS5jFhKsGVayuIR35
>>>>>>>>mg&s=wJ0GasZYquK6q6dDUp8pKpydSvEdwpCh2jytVwsclZE&e=
>
>
>>>>>>>>munity.icann.org%2Fx%2FugqsAw%5Bcommunity.icann.org&data=01%7C01%7C
>>>>>>>>B
>
>
>>>>>>>>winterfeldt%40mayerbrown.com%7Ccad701c35dc3416845bd08d3f759bebb%7C0
>>>>>>>>9
>
>
>>>>>>>>131022b7854e6d8d42916975e51262%7C0&sdata=3AhE7D7sQ71PXkCT2Y4BBmXOIB
>>>>>>>>M
>
> >>>>>>>%2FVXefpQnxZ8CnsKU%3D&reserved=0].
>
> >>>>>>>
>
> >>>>>>>
>
> >>>>>>>
>
> >>>>>>> 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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks
>>>>>>>>.protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dhttps-253A-252F-252Fmm&d=DQIGog&c=
>>>>>>>>FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x
>>>>>>>>6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=Cb2kDBPqnWowtSuMWqQgGAWtVS5jFhKsGVayuIR35m
>>>>>>>>g&s=1ion1hFz1idaqbSlgmGom3KVhXwcLGJ-YX-h9DRxBzo&e= .
>
>
>>>>>>>>icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-rpm-wg&data=01%7C01%7CBwinter
>>>>>>>>f
>
>
>>>>>>>>eldt%40mayerbrown.com%7Ccad701c35dc3416845bd08d3f759bebb%7C09131022
>>>>>>>>b
>
>
>>>>>>>>7854e6d8d42916975e51262%7C0&sdata=nNFktZrR2RCSn2zoMfdFLp1t2uvlKXPFI
>>>>>>>>9
>
> >>>>>>>PJ%2BbWKU5o%3D&reserved=0
>
> >>>>>>_______________________________________________
>
> >>>>>>gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
>
> >>>>>>gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
>
>
>>>>>>>https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.
>>>>>>>protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dhttps-253A-252F-252Fmm.i&d=DQIGog&c=
>>>>>>>FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6
>>>>>>>c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=Cb2kDBPqnWowtSuMWqQgGAWtVS5jFhKsGVayuIR35mg&
>>>>>>>s=sVQXkp4WFEIZNsn2wzZHauiSs1Ce96xSZnIcV0rlvzE&e=
>
>
>>>>>>>cann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-rpm-wg&data=01%7C01%7CBwinterfe
>>>>>>>l
>
>
>>>>>>>dt%40mayerbrown.com%7Ccad701c35dc3416845bd08d3f759bebb%7C09131022b78
>>>>>>>5
>
>
>>>>>>>4e6d8d42916975e51262%7C0&sdata=nNFktZrR2RCSn2zoMfdFLp1t2uvlKXPFI9PJ%
>>>>>>>2
>
> >>>>>>BbWKU5o%3D&reserved=0
>
> >>>>>
>
> >>>>_______________________________________________
>
> >>>>gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
>
> >>>>gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
>
>
>>>>>https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.pr
>>>>>otection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dhttps-253A-252F-252Fmm.ica&d=DQIGog&c=Fm
>>>>>Y1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w3
>>>>>xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=Cb2kDBPqnWowtSuMWqQgGAWtVS5jFhKsGVayuIR35mg&s=Wj7H
>>>>>HRtY0M7XOufzUcXG8ocEA9vKS2tCl00_mk1bh5E&e=
>
>
>>>>>nn.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-rpm-wg&data=01%7C01%7CBwinterfeldt%
>>>>>4
>
>
>>>>>0mayerbrown.com%7Ccad701c35dc3416845bd08d3f759bebb%7C09131022b7854e6d8
>>>>>d
>
>
>>>>>42916975e51262%7C0&sdata=nNFktZrR2RCSn2zoMfdFLp1t2uvlKXPFI9PJ%2BbWKU5o
>>>>>%
>
> >>>>3D&reserved=0
>
> >>>
>
> >
>
> >_______________________________________________
>
> >gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
>
> >gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
>
>
>>https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.prote
>>ction.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dhttps-253A-252F-252Fmm.icann&d=DQIGog&c=FmY1u3
>>PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w3xl7xb5c
>>jS_7sB4h6Y&m=Cb2kDBPqnWowtSuMWqQgGAWtVS5jFhKsGVayuIR35mg&s=yzZ1h1cepbWa2x
>>l03oaOavWIGr8YEelFoAU7x_RcPe0&e= .
>
>
>>org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-rpm-wg&data=01%7C01%7CBwinterfeldt%40maye
>>r
>
>
>>brown.com%7Ccad701c35dc3416845bd08d3f759bebb%7C09131022b7854e6d8d42916975
>>e
>
>
>>51262%7C0&sdata=nNFktZrR2RCSn2zoMfdFLp1t2uvlKXPFI9PJ%2BbWKU5o%3D&reserved
>>=
>
> >0
>
>
>>_________________________________________________________________________
>>_
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >This email and any files transmitted with it are intended solely for
>the
>
> >use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you
>have
>
> >received this email in error please notify the system manager. If
>you are
>
> >not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or
>copy
>
> >this e-mail.
>
> >
>
> >_______________________________________________
>
> >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