[gnso-rpm-wg] Directly from INTA's website: What the TTAB has to say about sample size

[icannlists]

George, once again you leave me befuddled. You are insisting that the INTA survey data be up to your high standards (which standards you assert through vague references to your personal opinions about statistical theory but no citations to any recognized authority) or else the survey be "sent to the trashcan", while at the same time insisting that your opinions - which you admit have no surveys attached to them at all- be given full weight. You really do need to make up your mind about the importance of surveys in order to support positions in this WG. You can't have it both ways.

Sent from my iPhone

> On Sep 1, 2017, at 6:24 PM, George Kirikos <icann at leap.com> wrote:
>
> Hi folks,
>
> A reply to both Paul McGrady and Kiran's last 2 emails, in a single email:
>
> 1. Paul McGrady wrote:
>
> http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2017-September/002449.html
>
> Essentially, Paul M. appears to believe that offering up a competing
> survey of one's own is a prerequisite to making a valuable
> contribution to this PDP. That's not correct. It is perfectly
> legitimate to point out statistical reality about a bad survey,
> without offering up a competing one. Furthermore, strong input can be
> made WITHOUT any surveys whatsoever to back up one's input:
>
> "But, it's not like our resident statistical experts have submitted
> any surveys of their own - scientifically perfect or otherwise - to
> back up their opinions."
>
> was already answered before, see:
>
> http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2017-August/002433.html
>
> But, let me demonstrate this again for you, so you can fully
> understand, with two concrete examples.
>
> (a) When I helped kill the .biz/info/org contract terms that would
> have allowed tiered/differential pricing:
>
> http://www.circleid.com/posts/icann_tiered_pricing_tld_biz_info_org_domain/
>
> no "surveys" were required to "back up" my opinion --- it was my deep
> and original thinking/analysis that did it. No survey required, but
> better analysis of what was available to everyone.
>
> (b) exact same superior analysis for killing off the proposed
> "Expedited Transfer Reversal Policy" (ETRP) from the IRTP-B PDP as
> discussed previously at:
>
> http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2017-August/002318.html
>
> "So folks, can we move off the unrequested, unhelpful opinions about
> statistics (which are interestingly not backed up by surveys to
> validate their accuracy which I find ironic) and get on with dealing
> with the giant workload before us?"
>
> No. It's these "unrequested" opinions that are actually the helpful
> ones, because they help expose the flaws in what was submitted as
> evidence in this PDP, and thus the weight that should be accorded the
> INTA survey (namely zero).
>
> This is the "superior analysis" that some in this PDP don't appear to
> like, and want to stifle and dismiss as "unhelpful". It's very
> helpful, to anyone who wants to do a scientific, neutral and objective
> analysis in this PDP.
>
> 2. Kiran wrote:
> http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2017-September/002450.html
>
> Actually, it's *not* 33 company's "input into the process", i.e. the
> "anecdotal evidence" that some wanted to "degrade" the survey into, to
> still retain some weight in this PDP. My previous email which started
> this thread talked about that, from the TTAB analysis.
>
> *If* it was distinct input such as:
>
> (a) IBM submitted the first anecdote (with all their individual responses).
> (b) Disney submitted the second anecdote.
>
> and so on, with 33 separate and concrete anecdotes, we might actually
> consider that anecdotal evidence of some kind, and weight it
> accordingly. But, that's *not* what we received at all.
>
> The act of *aggregation* and anonymization of those 33 responses, in
> order to attempt to present it as a **representative** survey
> (representative of typical INTA companies, or TM holders at large,
> which is ultimately the goal) means that all of the individual input
> (33 separate anecdotes) was essentially destroyed.
>
> We lost those 33 anecdotes, and they were instead transformed into and
> replaced with various "averages". Since those "averages" are
> meaningless statistically (as discussed at length), in the end we're
> left with nothing at all.
>
> If our group wants to do a proper survey, by all means lets do it! Ask
> those exact same questions that INTA asked, but do it properly (e.g.
> randomized from the USPTO or other national databases, and in
> sufficient quantity to be statistically sound). Or ask even better
> questions, that are more relevant to our work.
>
> Folks like Paul Keating and myself and others don't fear more data
> that is scientifically valid (we've asked for data like the TMCH
> materials, more from The Analysis Group, etc. but been denied or been
> waiting forever for it). And, we are perfectly within our rights as
> contributing members to this PDP to insist that data that is gathered
> in our work meet high standards, or be sent to the trash can.
>
> 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.