[gnso-rpm-wg] Critique of INTA survey
icann at leap.com
Wed Aug 30 20:02:27 UTC 2017
[It's "George", by the way. There's another person named "Georges" on this list]
I already submitted my comments, nearly 24 hours ago, and already gave
ample notice. The 2nd paragraph of my email even said:
"and make these statements in advance of the call, so that Lori or
INTA/Nielsen have a
chance to rebut"
The questions I ask will flow from that analysis, today's followup,
and also Kurt's email (since he won't be there to ask them himself).
There are no surprises here. No one's trying to ambush you.
Here's the very first question I will ask:
"In order to draw valid conclusions from a survey, the sample must be
both randomly selected, and the sample size be of sufficient size.
Isn't it correct that the INTA survey is (a) a self-selected,
non-random and unrepresentative sample, and (b) far too small, in
order to make any statistically reliable conclusions about the larger
population it purports to represent?"
Any answer but "Yes, you're correct George" will be difficult to
defend. The emails (from both myself and Kurt) give clear examples
demonstrating how unrepresentative it is, and even links to relevant
calculators for determining how large a sample size needs to be for
various error margins, etc.
After that, assuming you answer "Yes", a natural followup would be "Do
you withdraw the study?" The best answer to that would be "Yes". Note,
that the invitation (very politely offered -- to save everyone time)
was given to withdraw it 8 hours before the conference call. It's now
7 hours before the conference call.
On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 3:45 PM, Lori Schulman <lschulman at inta.org> wrote:
> I am going to ask that all tough questions be put in writing so I can review
> and discuss with the survey’s administrators if I can’t answer them myself.
> As you noted, there is a low response rate and the analysis is complex and
> may not apply to this group’s work. If you have your questions already
> formulated, please submit them to the list.
> 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 3:29 PM
> To: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>
> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Critique of INTA survey
> 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.
> George Kirikos
> 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
>> 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
>> 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 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.
>> George Kirikos
>> 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
>>>> the favored rights protection mechanisms, used to a major or moderate
>>>> by 67% and 64% of the respondents respectively. The next most utilized
>>>> were Trademark Claims and URS (by 36% and 27% respectively). To me this
>>>> 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
>>> 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:
>>> "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."
>>> George Kirikos
>> gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
>> gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
> gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
> gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
More information about the gnso-rpm-wg