[gnso-rpm-wg] Inferences (was Re: Mp3, Attendance, AC recording & AC Chat Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) PDP Working Group)

[Jon Nevett]

Thanks George for taking the time to find some of the quotes.  Let's move on.  Jon

> On Jul 17, 2017, at 11:44 AM, George Kirikos <icann at leap.com> wrote:
> 
> Hello,
> 
> On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 10:41 AM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 1.  I don't believe there was anyone who denied there was any abuse of the
>> TMCH.  Viewpoints are polarized enough in the WG; it makes matters worse to
>> portray them as even more polarized than they actually are.  This has the
>> secondary problem of "enabling" others to build on these specious claims.
>> Not 3 minutes went by after your email, when George Kirikos leveled the
>> "fake news" allegation at Georges Nehitchevansky that he "repeatedly denied
>> that there was any abuse of the TMCH to begin with."  Georges has already
>> stated in this thread that that was not the case, but I guess that was not
>> sufficient for some people.
> 
> Folks seem to be interpreting "widespread" and "evidence" differently.
> When Georges says something like:
> 
> http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2017-April/001506.html
> 
> "Paul.  I don't think you understand the point we are all making.
> There is no need for the type of review you are asking for.  The
> alleged abuse simply is not there.  So apart from being a waste of
> time, and apart from the confidentiality reasons previously raised,
> there is no need for this unless one is hell bent on conducting a
> witch hunt in the name of so-called transparency in order to try and
> prove what is essentially a negative."
> 
> I read that as him being in denial of abuse at all existing,
> widespread or not. i.e. "the alleged abuse simply is not there".
> 
> But, then there are variations, when he's used the terms "widespread
> abuse" or "widespread evidence of abuse", e.g. from:
> 
> http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2017-April/001458.html
> 
> "Actually it touches on the point here. If you are going to make
> various arguments of alleged abuse in support of claimed transparency,
> then it would it is relevant to know whether you are supporting a lack
> of transparency in the whois side of things where abuse has been
> rampant. While the TMCH and Whois are different animals a number of
> the arguments being made here to support transparency have actually
> been mirrored in the other context and rejected by those seeking
> opacity.  And one major difference between ‎the two situations is that
> there is widespread evidence of abuse of the whois system whereas here
> in the TMCH context you do not have evidence of a widespread abuse of
> the TMCH by brand owners. Nevertheless, you and others persist on
> wanting to conduct a fishing expedition under the guise of so called
> "transparency" to try and find some alleged widespread harm that
> simply does not exist. To many folks on the other side of the aisle,
> it appears that this is not about transparency but more about some
> effort to gut existing protections and to obtain the release of
> confidential information of brand owners as to what they did or did
> not register.   Perhaps this may not be the intent, but we all know
> that once that information is out the gaming will really begin.
> ‎Again, perhaps there are tweeks that could be made to improve the
> current system, but there is no real basis for undertaking the broad
> review that is being sought and certainly not for undoing the entire
> existing system."
> 
> or more recently:
> 
> http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2017-July/002187.html
> 
> "I think the basis problem has been and remains that the basis for all
> this hunting around and data requests is an unfounded claim that there
> is an abundance of “abusive and overreaching tmch registrations.” The
> evidence of such alleged widespread abuse has not been presented,
> because it doesn’t exist.  What all this sound and fury about data
> etc. reminds me of is Donald Trump claiming with basically no evidence
> that there was widespread voter fraud to explain why he do not get the
> majority of the popular vote in the US and then setting up a special
> commission to investigate the matter in the hope of cobbling together
> some sort of proof.  In the end it’s a waste of everybody’s time and
> money."
> 
> (quoted in full, to not be accused of misquoting). Here's the thing,
> though. When you say something like "the evidence of such alleged
> widespread abuse has not been presented, because it doesn't exist",
> that doesn't make any distinction between EVIDENCE and PROOF. Perhaps
> Georges N. intended to write "proof" instead of "evidence". How do you
> prove "widespread abuse"? You start by presenting any "evidence of
> abuse". It's only once you have a LOT of evidence of abuse that you
> can then say that you have proof that there was "widespread abuse."
> Georges N.  might disagree that the total amount of evidence has yet
> proven "widespread abuse", but when you start saying "evidence hasn't
> been presented", that denies the evidence itself of any abuse.
> 
> We already know that the percentage of gamed/abused sunrise
> registrations exceeds the proportion of domains that lead to a UDRP.
> i.e. is the term "widespread" (in percentage terms) somehow applied
> numerically differently when saying "the cybersquatting problem is
> widespread", than when saying "there are widespread abuses of the
> sunrise periods"?
> 
> 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

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 842 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/attachments/20170717/da974995/signature.asc>