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

Wed Oct 19 14:13:30 UTC 2016

Good point Steve.

Statton

On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 6:22 AM, Steve Levy <slevy at accentlawgroup.com>
wrote:

> As to Petter’s point, I see the lack of knowledge of the PDDRP as a
> valuable statistic (i.e, understanding the scope so that perhaps further
> outreach and education efforts can be planned).  However, I’m wondering
> what value we’re expecting from asking those who’ve never heard of the
> Policy to comment upon it or answer any other questions in the survey.  How
> can one provide any reliable or helpful comments or question responses on a
> topic of which they have no knowledge?
>
> Regards,
> Steve
>
> Steven M. Levy, Esq.
>
> *Accent Law Group, Inc.*
> 301 Fulton St.
> Philadelphia, PA 19147
>
> United States
>
> Phone: +1-215-327-9094
> Email: slevy at AccentLawGroup.com <slevy at accentlawgroup.com>
>
> Website: www.AccentLawGroup.com <http://www.accentlawgroup.com/>
>
> <http://www.accentlawgroup.com/>LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/in/
> stevelevy43a/
>
>
> On 10/19/16, 8:39 AM, "gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org on behalf of Paul
> Keating" <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org on behalf of paul at law.es> wrote:
>
> 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 <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 <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 <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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
> gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/attachments/20161019/4ceb1dc5/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 7A4BE296-E433-40E1-BE3F-34A1A7AD2F08.png
Type: image/png
Size: 17001 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/attachments/20161019/4ceb1dc5/7A4BE296-E433-40E1-BE3F-34A1A7AD2F08-0001.png>