[gnso-rpm-wg] Critique of INTA survey

[George Kirikos]

Hi Paul,

That's an obvious misstatement of what I wrote. I looked at the top 10
strings (data) in The Analysis Group report just like everyone else --
they were all common dictionary words. If they had been famous
fanciful marks, my conclusions would have been different. I looked at
the Deloitte responses to the set of examples that Rebecca submitted
for analysis. And so on.

I don't know why you keep trying to misstating what I actually wrote.
I wrote what I wrote, and the group doesn't need a slanted
reinterpretation of it.

Kurt and I made a detailed analysis of the INTA survey. If you
disagree with any of its points, be specific.

Sincerely,

George Kirikos
416-588-0269
http://www.leap.com/

On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 11:04 PM, icannlists <icannlists at winston.com> wrote:
> Hi George,
>
> Thanks for confirming that you have submitted no surveys, flawed or otherwise, and that your various positions are merely supported by what you believe to be, in self-validating fashion, "backed by sound and logical reasoning."
>
> Best,
> Paul
>
>
>
> -----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 9:49 PM
> To: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>
> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Critique of INTA survey
>
> Hi Paul,
>
> On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 10:07 PM, icannlists <icannlists at winston.com> wrote:
>> 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.
>
> If you saw a specific fault in the analysis I provided (or Kurt's), please be specific/precise about what you feel is incorrect. If you accept the analysis as correct, and your only point is "nobody's perfect", that's a weak argument. Bad data is often worse than no data at all, because bad data can lead one towards making bad policy choices, and indeed even embolden that decision-making (because there's a pretense that it was supported by data).
>
> For instance, if there was an automotive transportation policy survey, and 80% of the non-random responses (all 33 of them) were from Rolls Royce owners (an unrepresentative small sample), it should be obvious that the survey would likely lead policymakers to make incorrect decisions for the population of 100 million+ drivers.
>
> An invalid survey (due to a non-random sample combined with a far too small sample size) is just that --- there's little to learn from it (except perhaps how to design better surveys).
>
> I've not submitted any survey data. I don't have the budget of ICANN or INTA supporting my participation in this PDP. My positions are backed by sound and logical reasoning, with deep analysis of the data that this group has had access to (e.g. answers from the TMCH operator, information from The Analysis Group, etc.).
>
> 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
>
> ________________________________
> 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.