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

Wed Oct 19 12:51:25 UTC 2016

I think we may rely on it for statistical purposes but should note the sample size in the report.

_______________________________
Christopher Thomas
Partner

Parker Poe
PNC Plaza | 301 Fayetteville Street | Suite 1400 | Raleigh, NC 27601
Office: 919.835.4641 | Fax: 919.834.4564

Visit our website at
www.parkerpoe.com

-----Original Message-----
From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Paul Keating
Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2016 8:40 AM
To: gtheo
Cc: gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] FOR REVIEW & DISCUSSION: Provider and Survey Responses on TM-PDDRP

When we send it out the email should explain that we need responses.

Regarding use of the sample yes I agree all information is good. However we really cannot rely upon it for statistical purposes and should note that in our report.

Sincerely,
Paul Keating, Esq.

> On Oct 19, 2016, at 1:52 PM, gtheo <gtheo at xs4all.nl> wrote:
>
> Agreed, if the sample size is too small, we should send it again.
>
> As mentioned before, usually the response rate is rather low when it comes to these survey's, this has never stopped us to take the results into account in previous exercises.
>
> Regards,
>
> Theo Geurts | Compliance & Policy Officer
>
> Realtime Register B.V.
>
> Ceintuurbaan 32A
> 8024 AA - ZWOLLE - The Netherlands
>
> T: +31.384530759
> F: +31.384524734
> U: www.realtimeregister.com
> E: legal at realtimeregister.com
>
>
> Petter Rindforth schreef op 2016-10-19 09:57 AM:
>> Agree.
>> Let's try to send it out again, and maybe this time especially add
>> that we appreciate to get comments even if the TM-PDDRP has never
>> been considered or is totally unknown.
>> I sent a reminder to a couple of IP attorney groups, and got a
>> response back from a number of members that they had never heard
>> about the TM-PDDRP and therefore saw no reason to reply to the Survey.
>> Best,
>> Petter
>> --
>> Petter Rindforth, LL M
>> Fenix Legal KB
>> Stureplan 4c, 4tr
>> 114 35 Stockholm
>> Sweden
>> Fax: +46(0)8-4631010
>> Direct phone: +46(0)702-369360
>> E-mail: petter.rindforth at fenixlegal.eu www.fenixlegal.eu NOTICE This
>> e-mail message is intended solely for the individual or individuals
>> to whom it is addressed. It may contain confidential attorney-client
>> privileged information and attorney work product. If the reader of
>> this message is not the intended recipient, you are requested not to
>> read, copy or distribute it or any of the information it contains.
>> Please delete it immediately and notify us by return e-mail.
>> Fenix Legal KB, Sweden, www.fenixlegal.eu Thank you
>> 18 oktober 2016 15:45:45 +02:00, skrev Thomas, Christopher M.
>> <christhomas at parkerpoe.com>:
>>> I agree with Renee. And if we do not get a significant response, I
>>> think we need to make a determination on the data that we have.
>>> Thanks,
>>> Chris
>>> _______________________________
>>> Christopher Thomas
>>> Partner
>>> Parker Poe
>>> PNC Plaza | 301 Fayetteville Street | Suite 1400 | Raleigh, NC 27601
>>> Office: 919.835.4641 | Fax: 919.834.4564 Visit our website at
>>> www.parkerpoe.com [1] -----Original Message-----
>>> From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org
>>> [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Reuter, Renee M
>>> Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2016 9:24 AM
>>> To: J. Scott Evans; George Kirikos
>>> Cc: gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] FOR REVIEW & DISCUSSION: Provider and
>>> Survey Responses on TM-PDDRP I think it would be unfair to those who
>>> took the time to send in responses for us to ignore the survey
>>> results. I would be in favor of recirculating the survey.
>>> Renee
>>> -----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 8:22 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
>>> www.adobe.com [2] 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:
>>> http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2016-October/000685.html
>>> "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
>>> http://www.leap.com/
>>> 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
>>> www.adobe.com [2] 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 [2] 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 [2]
>>> 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
>> _______________________________________________
>> gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
>> gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
>> ________________________________
>> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail and any files transmitted with it
>> are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom
>> they are addressed and may contain confidential and privileged
>> information protected by law. If you received this e-mail in error,
>> any review, use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of the
>> e-mail is strictly prohibited. Please notify the sender immediately
>> by return e-mail and delete all copies from your system.
>> _______________________________________________
>> gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
>> gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
>> PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL: This electronic message and any
>> attachments are confidential property of the sender. The information
>> is intended only or the use of the person to whom it was addressed.
>> Any other interception, copying, accessing, or disclosure of this
>> message is prohibited. The sender takes no responsibility for any
>> unauthorized reliance on this message. If you have received this
>> message in error, please immediately notify the sender and purge the
>> message you received. Do not forward this message without permission.
>> [ppab_p&c]
>> _______________________________________________
>> gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
>> gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
>> Links:
>> ------
>> [1] http://www.parkerpoe.com
>> [2] http://www.adobe.com
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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