[gnso-rpm-wg] A few clarifications on the TM-PDDRP Community Survey
George Kirikos
icann at leap.com
Wed Oct 19 16:26:22 UTC 2016
I took a moment to "dig in" to the raw survey results that Kathy
linked to on the wiki (might need to rename the file with a .pdf
extension to open it, depending on your operating system). There were
16 responses, and here's who responded:
PDDRP Survey Responses:
* 1. Jon Nevett, Donuts, RySG
2. Emily Taylor, Netistrar, RrSG
* 3. Mike Rodenbaugh, IPC
4. http://whois.domaintools.com/168.94.245.24, Best Buy?
5. Chris Chaplow, BC
6. http://whois.domaintools.com/63.234.145.99, Endurance, RrSG
7. Damon Ashcraft, Snell & Wilmer, IPC
8. Jonathan Cohen, Shapiro Cohen, IPC
9. Michael Zoebisch, rwzh (law firm), MARQUES
* 10. Denise Michel, Facebook, BC
11. http://whois.domaintools.com/202.11.16.148, Japan Registry Service?, ccNSO
12. Mark Urban, At-Large
13. http://whois.domaintools.com/37.99.193.59, someone in Greece?, RrSG
* 14. Theo Gurts, Realtime Register, RrSG
15. Rob Golding, Astutium, RrSG
16. SafeBrands, RrSG
* = already member of this PDP (see
https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=58729950 for
PDP participants)
Oddly, 4 of the survey responses were from folks who are already
members of this PDP. I was under the impression that we were going to
have the survey as part of "outreach", to hear from folks who aren't
already in this PDP. If we go back to the July 27, 2016 chat
transcript, there was talk of doing outreach to large brandowners
(e.g. on Interbrand list, Forbes list of top brands, or those owning
large portfolios of domains; i.e. the ones most likely to experience
abuse, and thus potentially use the PDDRP; I can't remember if we said
it orally, but even reaching out to the largest filers of UDRPs, e.g.
Lego, etc.).
Usually we have the situation where there's a small working group, and
a large universe of stakeholders not in the working group. Surveys are
designed to help ensure that the small minority in the working group
considers what that larger universe is experiencing, etc. Perhaps it's
the case that no one really cares about the PDDRP (i.e. "small
universe of stakeholders"), and anyone that does care is already a
member of this very large working group!
I don't know if ICANN has any data/stats scientists on staff, but it's
clear that if we are going to do surveys, we need to do a lot better.
Perhaps even budgeting for it properly (e.g. a lot of money spent on
new gTLD "consumer awareness" surveys). This survey was extremely
short -- perhaps it could have been done by directed outgoing
telephone outreach to those big brand owners, or top 100 IP law firms
or top 50 registrars, or anything to get a large (statistically
significant) sample of voices/input beyond our own working group
participants.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos
416-588-0269
http://www.leap.com/
On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 11:30 AM, Kathy Kleiman <kathy at kathykleiman.com> wrote:
> All, I am underwhelmed by this survey response. I believe the ICANN
> Community knows how to respond when it wants to (e.g., we received 10,000
> responses to our call for public comment in the Proxy/Privacy Accreditation
> (PPSAI) WG and one of them had thousands of signatories).
>
> I think that this survey suffers from its consolidation. I urge everyone to
> read the full, short 11 pages of the unedited, unrefined survey results.
> Some communities did not respond at all (and I can speak for my community
> that there was no groundswell of interest in change, so we did not respond).
>
> Of those who Did Response, most (2:1) wrote with us that they have NOT seen
> "conduct by new gTLD registry operators" that they believe constitutes a
> "substantial pattern or practice of specific bad faith intent to provide
> from the sale of trademark infringing domain names." Accordingly, they
> Skipped questions 8, 9 and 10 about how to make the TM-PDDRP better because
> they did not feel it was needed.
>
> Accordingly, of the 16 responses, 11 of them Did Not recommend Any Changes
> to the TM-PDDRP. That's an affirmative act. These are skilled members of our
> Community - Registries, Registrars, ccTLDs, IPC Members, Business
> Constituency (they responded with names and/or affiliations that you can see
> on the full survey results). They know how to ask for what they want and
> need.
>
> I don't think we need redo this survey, but I do think we need to analyze it
> -- the unconsolidated, detailed version.
>
> And then talk about mediation, consolidation, and a limitations period,
> issues that have been discussed extensively in our WG since the early days
> of our TM-PDDRP discussions.
>
> Full survey, All TM=PDDRP Survey Response from Community, attached. Also
> posted on our WG TM-PDDRP Wiki page at
> https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/Additional+Documents+and+Materials+on+the+TM-PDDRP
>
> Best, Kathy
>
> On 10/18/2016 10:19 AM, Mary Wong 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.protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dwww.adobe.com-26data-3D01-257&d=DQIGog&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=Cb2kDBPqnWowtSuMWqQgGAWtVS5jFhKsGVayuIR35mg&s=Wv7WVFaA5vsdMzKGOFooBWnU4HPs409ptkDvJMwHoT0&e=
>
>
>>C01%7CBwinterfeldt%40mayerbrown.com%7Ccad701c35dc3416845bd08d3f759bebb%7C0
>
>
>>9131022b7854e6d8d42916975e51262%7C0&sdata=FLB5lBUu8KJ452nIHswQDuHxLero4h40
>
> >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.protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dhttp-253A-252F-252Fmm.icann&d=DQIGog&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=Cb2kDBPqnWowtSuMWqQgGAWtVS5jFhKsGVayuIR35mg&s=JSrtf22S0lYp_TXvmmSkU2_yYDrUoKBZQ-q8_w3IKjk&e=
> .
>
>
>>>org%2Fpipermail%2Fgnso-rpm-wg%2F2016-October%2F000685.html&data=01%7C01%7
>
>
>>>CBwinterfeldt%40mayerbrown.com%7Ccad701c35dc3416845bd08d3f759bebb%7C09131
>
>
>>>022b7854e6d8d42916975e51262%7C0&sdata=VIUCDoME2%2FjmgMFmQqmykgl8zJEZJU6Ov
>
> >>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.protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dhttp-253A-252F-252Fwww.leap&d=DQIGog&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=Cb2kDBPqnWowtSuMWqQgGAWtVS5jFhKsGVayuIR35mg&s=cYA4KTitDA-lyJ_1Ip7sdCAxeO1Aks9SSGiLy8t61Q0&e=
> .
>
>
>>>com%2F&data=01%7C01%7CBwinterfeldt%40mayerbrown.com%7Ccad701c35dc3416845b
>
>
>>>d08d3f759bebb%7C09131022b7854e6d8d42916975e51262%7C0&sdata=tWfU%2BStelCVq
>
> >>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.protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dwww.adobe.com-26data-3D01&d=DQIGog&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=Cb2kDBPqnWowtSuMWqQgGAWtVS5jFhKsGVayuIR35mg&s=fvhovw3o3b2LHI5FemyH8GoupbhL2hRClmUjF0lnYxk&e=
>
>
>>>>%7C01%7CBwinterfeldt%40mayerbrown.com%7Ccad701c35dc3416845bd08d3f759bebb
>
>
>>>>%7C09131022b7854e6d8d42916975e51262%7C0&sdata=FLB5lBUu8KJ452nIHswQDuHxLe
>
> >>>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.protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dhttp-253A-252F-252Fwww.lea&d=DQIGog&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=Cb2kDBPqnWowtSuMWqQgGAWtVS5jFhKsGVayuIR35mg&s=CENzSQO-UItQAZFzgA4Ifp--PSIZhkJjki5JzxQbpXM&e=
>
>
>>>>>p.com%2F&data=01%7C01%7CBwinterfeldt%40mayerbrown.com%7Ccad701c35dc3416
>
>
>>>>>845bd08d3f759bebb%7C09131022b7854e6d8d42916975e51262%7C0&sdata=tWfU%2BS
>
> >>>>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.protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dwww.adobe.com-26data-3D&d=DQIGog&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=Cb2kDBPqnWowtSuMWqQgGAWtVS5jFhKsGVayuIR35mg&s=WWmZRfbYWC8h77-UrwmWK4CLhzfKqvi6VmmytPGE6OQ&e=
>
>
>>>>>>01%7C01%7CBwinterfeldt%40mayerbrown.com%7Ccad701c35dc3416845bd08d3f759
>
>
>>>>>>bebb%7C09131022b7854e6d8d42916975e51262%7C0&sdata=FLB5lBUu8KJ452nIHswQ
>
> >>>>>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=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=Cb2kDBPqnWowtSuMWqQgGAWtVS5jFhKsGVayuIR35mg&s=bAn0luLoLGcRRgPR3B60zmziY7y16bRJTQZYELVwjjM&e=
> .
>
>
>>>>>>>surveymonkey.com%2Fmp%2Ftour%2Fskiplogic%2F&data=01%7C01%7CBwinterfel
>
>
>>>>>>>dt%40mayerbrown.com%7Ccad701c35dc3416845bd08d3f759bebb%7C09131022b785
>
>
>>>>>>>4e6d8d42916975e51262%7C0&sdata=vl6Lhl21GVSzrgY1nnJklWCQxvJk%2FElc2yi9
>
> >>>>>>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-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=Cb2kDBPqnWowtSuMWqQgGAWtVS5jFhKsGVayuIR35mg&s=j8QIgHGA8iVduJZpOCzS-M7dunw3vjNpc4x4vKCQKrI&e=
>
>
>>>>>>>eap.com%2F&data=01%7C01%7CBwinterfeldt%40mayerbrown.com%7Ccad701c35dc
>
>
>>>>>>>3416845bd08d3f759bebb%7C09131022b7854e6d8d42916975e51262%7C0&sdata=tW
>
> >>>>>>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=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=Cb2kDBPqnWowtSuMWqQgGAWtVS5jFhKsGVayuIR35mg&s=_HBcYonZABN5yLbgVU5ilIoslEz_mfS7tq7_I1eb67Q&e=
>
>
>>>>>>>>a=01%7C01%7CBwinterfeldt%40mayerbrown.com%7Ccad701c35dc3416845bd08d3
>
>
>>>>>>>>f759bebb%7C09131022b7854e6d8d42916975e51262%7C0&sdata=FLB5lBUu8KJ452
>
> >>>>>>>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-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=Cb2kDBPqnWowtSuMWqQgGAWtVS5jFhKsGVayuIR35mg&s=wJ0GasZYquK6q6dDUp8pKpydSvEdwpCh2jytVwsclZE&e=
>
>
>>>>>>>>munity.icann.org%2Fx%2FugqsAw%5Bcommunity.icann.org&data=01%7C01%7CB
>
>
>>>>>>>>winterfeldt%40mayerbrown.com%7Ccad701c35dc3416845bd08d3f759bebb%7C09
>
>
>>>>>>>>131022b7854e6d8d42916975e51262%7C0&sdata=3AhE7D7sQ71PXkCT2Y4BBmXOIBM
>
> >>>>>>>%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-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=Cb2kDBPqnWowtSuMWqQgGAWtVS5jFhKsGVayuIR35mg&s=1ion1hFz1idaqbSlgmGom3KVhXwcLGJ-YX-h9DRxBzo&e=
> .
>
>
>>>>>>>>icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-rpm-wg&data=01%7C01%7CBwinterf
>
>
>>>>>>>>eldt%40mayerbrown.com%7Ccad701c35dc3416845bd08d3f759bebb%7C09131022b
>
>
>>>>>>>>7854e6d8d42916975e51262%7C0&sdata=nNFktZrR2RCSn2zoMfdFLp1t2uvlKXPFI9
>
> >>>>>>>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-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=Cb2kDBPqnWowtSuMWqQgGAWtVS5jFhKsGVayuIR35mg&s=sVQXkp4WFEIZNsn2wzZHauiSs1Ce96xSZnIcV0rlvzE&e=
>
>
>>>>>>>cann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-rpm-wg&data=01%7C01%7CBwinterfel
>
>
>>>>>>>dt%40mayerbrown.com%7Ccad701c35dc3416845bd08d3f759bebb%7C09131022b785
>
>
>>>>>>>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.protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dhttps-253A-252F-252Fmm.ica&d=DQIGog&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=Cb2kDBPqnWowtSuMWqQgGAWtVS5jFhKsGVayuIR35mg&s=Wj7HHRtY0M7XOufzUcXG8ocEA9vKS2tCl00_mk1bh5E&e=
>
>
>>>>>nn.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-rpm-wg&data=01%7C01%7CBwinterfeldt%4
>
>
>>>>>0mayerbrown.com%7Ccad701c35dc3416845bd08d3f759bebb%7C09131022b7854e6d8d
>
>
>>>>>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.protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dhttps-253A-252F-252Fmm.icann&d=DQIGog&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=Cb2kDBPqnWowtSuMWqQgGAWtVS5jFhKsGVayuIR35mg&s=yzZ1h1cepbWa2xl03oaOavWIGr8YEelFoAU7x_RcPe0&e=
> .
>
>
>>org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-rpm-wg&data=01%7C01%7CBwinterfeldt%40mayer
>
>
>>brown.com%7Ccad701c35dc3416845bd08d3f759bebb%7C09131022b7854e6d8d42916975e
>
>
>>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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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