[gnso-rpm-wg] Critique of INTA survey

Wed Aug 30 19:34:37 UTC 2017

Hello everyone,

It may be helpful to recall that the INTA survey was expressly referenced in the Draft Report of the Competition, Consumer Protection & Consumer Trust (CCT) Review Team, published in March this year, in the section of the report that deals with Rights Protection Mechanisms. You may recall also that several of the CCT Review Team’s draft recommendations were also addressed to our Working Group. 

In addition, our Working Group Charter expressly requires us to track the work of the CCT Review Team, whose final recommendations are expected later this year. As such, and in a similar fashion to the Analysis Group’s report on the Trademark Clearinghouse (TMCH), the INTA survey results can be seen as data-based input into the PDP deliberations. As others have noted, what the Working Group then decides is the utility of all such input is a matter for the Working Group to discuss and determine.

Cheers
Mary

On 8/30/17, 15:29, "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:

    Lori,

    It is false to say the my comments have any bias or hostility. They
    are sound arguments. I was open to it being a scientifically valid
    survey, but then I read it, multiple times. So did Kurt (maybe not
    multiple times for him!?!?), who I have no affiliation with.

    I don't know whether the working group chairs were aware of the
    study's deep flaws before they made the invitation to present it, or
    had even read it, but now they do. If they want to keep the schedule,
    I'll be there to ask the tough questions tonight, and let the PDP
    members that want to try to defend it do so.

    Sincerely,

    George Kirikos
    416-588-0269
    https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.leap.com_&d=DwIGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=CyLG1EtI0gAFiAwuvI-sFLNkH_Z0kQlYfLsPgrOxrqo&s=dNhIG1sPdUqpLWWod1lco9HnqKfNIZ2Ebm9KVLKGBL4&e= 

    On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 3:22 PM, Lori Schulman <lschulman at inta.org> wrote:
    > Dear All,
    >
    >
    >
    > This working group chairs requested that I present INTA’s survey results and
    > that I what I intend to do.  I am here to present existing data.  It is up
    > to the group to decide if there is any value here.  George comments show
    > immediate bias and hostility toward the work before we have even started a
    > discussion.  I have stated all along that the study was intended for another
    > purpose and that we had challenges with conducting it.   If the PDP WG
    > wishes to exclude the findings that is for the group to decide.  Everything
    > we do is a learning.   George, if you feel that this evening’s call will
    > have little or no value to  your participation, you have the option of not
    > dialing in and listening to the recording at your convenience.
    >
    >
    >
    > Lori
    >
    >
    >
    > Lori S. Schulman
    >
    > Senior Director, Internet Policy
    >
    > International Trademark Association (INTA)
    >
    > +1-202-704-0408, Skype: lsschulman
    >
    >
    >
    > From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org]
    > On Behalf Of George Kirikos
    > Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2017 3:05 PM
    > To: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>
    > Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Critique of INTA survey
    >
    >
    >
    > P.S. There are roughly 8 hours to go until our scheduled call. I would
    > invite Lori and/or INTA to simply withdraw the paper from this PDP
    > (and the other ICANN group to which it was presented), since
    > ultimately it is not a scientifically valid study. Any conclusions
    > from it are indefensible.
    >
    > It would bring more credibility to INTA to withdraw it, in my opinion,
    > recognizing it as deeply flawed now, rather than to attempt to defend
    > it for 90 minutes tonight, and ultimately see it abandoned/ignored by
    > the PDP. As a group, we're always seeking efficiencies --- withdrawing
    > this paper and giving everyone back their Wednesday night appears to
    > me to be "low hanging fruit" in that regard.
    >
    > The sooner it's withdrawn, the more time folks will have to make
    > arrangements to enjoy their Wednesday evening.
    >
    > Sincerely,
    >
    > George Kirikos
    > 416-588-0269
    > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.leap.com_&d=DwIGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=CyLG1EtI0gAFiAwuvI-sFLNkH_Z0kQlYfLsPgrOxrqo&s=dNhIG1sPdUqpLWWod1lco9HnqKfNIZ2Ebm9KVLKGBL4&e= 
    >
    >
    > On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 2:13 PM, George Kirikos <icann at leap.com> wrote:
    >> Hi Kurt,
    >>
    >> Thanks for mostly agreeing with my analysis. However:
    >>
    >> On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 1:47 PM, Kurt Pritz <kurt at kjpritz.com> wrote:
    >>> There was one conclusion I could draw. It states that UDRP and Sunrise
    >>> were
    >>> the favored rights protection mechanisms, used to a major or moderate
    >>> extent
    >>> by 67% and 64% of the respondents respectively. The next most utilized
    >>> RPMs
    >>> were Trademark Claims and URS (by 36% and 27% respectively). To me this
    >>> says
    >>> that, to those who are in-the-know, Sunrise is a highly-valued RPM and,
    >>> therefore, should be continued. (Sorry, George) (see slides 15 and 51)
    >>
    >> The first part of your conclusion is correct (obviously anyone who
    >> personally benefits from "front of the line" privileges is going to
    >> value it), but the second part (therefore, that it should be
    >> continued) is NOT correct. As a PDP, our job is to weigh the benefits
    >> against the costs of policy choices amongst ALL stakeholders, not just
    >> ones receiving benefits.
    >>
    >> Thus, if that was "the one conclusion (you) could draw", and it's now
    >> debunked, then we're left with the truth, that no conclusions can be
    >> drawn from it --- it's for entertainment value only, i.e. it's an
    >> advocacy piece, marketing fluff, not a scientifically-valid survey
    >> that would endure any serious peer review from those in the field of
    >> statistics.
    >>
    >> To be clear, I tried to keep yesterday's email as short as possible
    >> (remember, it was a response to a very long document), and didn't
    >> point out every flaw with the survey. To point out another, note that
    >> on page 6 it notes that 67% of responses were from USA and Canada.
    >> However, INTA's own website states that:
    >>
    >> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.inta.org_Membership_Pages_Membership.aspx&d=DwIGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=CyLG1EtI0gAFiAwuvI-sFLNkH_Z0kQlYfLsPgrOxrqo&s=-s9sNFCNGoUjL10d2P5lo6XkXseLz9ueBdatEQvABd0&e= 
    >>
    >> "63% of our member organizations are outside of North America."
    >>
    >> This further reinforces my point that it was an unrepresentative
    >> sample. As we know from election polling, the survey companies make
    >> adjustments in weighting to attempt to compensate for the
    >> unrepresentative samples (e.g. if too many men were sampled relative
    >> to the known proportion, they'd lower the weights accordingly, etc.).
    >> No attempts were made to do this (nor could they credibly have done
    >> so, given the small sample size, and lack of randomness).
    >>
    >> This is a classic case of "If you torture the data long enough, it
    >> will confess to anything."
    >>
    >> Sincerely,
    >>
    >> George Kirikos
    >> 416-588-0269
    >> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.leap.com_&d=DwIGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=CyLG1EtI0gAFiAwuvI-sFLNkH_Z0kQlYfLsPgrOxrqo&s=dNhIG1sPdUqpLWWod1lco9HnqKfNIZ2Ebm9KVLKGBL4&e= 
    > _______________________________________________
    > 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