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

Paul Keating paul at law.es
Wed Oct 19 15:28:42 UTC 2016


AND the number or responses to any given question. Otherwise it overstates the significance.  

Sincerely,
Paul Keating, Esq.

> On Oct 19, 2016, at 2:51 PM, Thomas, Christopher M. <christhomas at parkerpoe.com> wrote:
> 
> 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


More information about the gnso-rpm-wg mailing list