[gnso-rpm-wg] Critique of INTA survey
gregshatanipc at gmail.com
Thu Aug 31 02:54:15 UTC 2017
Here's a specific fault for you, George.
It should be noted that George's challenges start with a basic fallacy --
that "the sample must be ... randomly selected." Not that a random sample
is preferable, or that a random sample is better, etc. No -- it's absolute
a sample MUST be randomly selected, according to George.
This is just plain wrong. Many surveys are done with samples that are not
random samples (also known as probability samples). There are various
survey methods that involve non-probability samples, which are respected
and valid. The idea that a survey is worthless unless it is based on a
random sample is hogwash.
Random samples are preferable as a starting point, but even there there are
various types of biases. One is "non-response bias" -- that members of the
selected sample don't respond to the survey. [George seems to ignore the
distinction between the initial sample and the responses, but that wouldn't
serve his purposes....]
This is an important point -- the initial sample is really the 1000+
members of INTA, which is in turn a subset of all trademark owners. The
group of respondents is a subset of that sample.
I'm not going to go on, though I could. I could even dust off my old stats
books from college.
In any event, the results exist and there is no reason to "withdraw" this
survey. In George's world, things that George doesn't like just go away.
Thankfully, only one of us lives in George's world.
On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 10:07 PM, icannlists <icannlists at winston.com> wrote:
> Hi George,
> I've read with some amusement your various critiques of the INTA survey.
> However, I could not find even imperfect surveys that you have submitted
> that tend to support your various positions taken on this list and on
> calls. I hope you will be as open minded about what we can learn from what
> you view as a flawed survey as we have all been about your positions taken
> based on non-surveys. However, if you have submitted surveys that tend to
> back your various positions -especially scientifically perfect ones - and I
> simply overlooked them, could you send them round again now? Thanks.
> -----Original Message-----
> 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 2:29 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 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.
> > 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
> > http://www.leap.com/
> > 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://www.inta.org/Membership/Pages/Membership.aspx
> >> "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
> >> http://www.leap.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
> The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. If this
> message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it.
> Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable
> privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of
> the author. Any tax advice contained in this email was not intended to be
> used, and cannot be used, by you (or any other taxpayer) to avoid penalties
> under applicable tax laws and regulations.
> gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
> gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the gnso-rpm-wg