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

Sat Sep 2 02:53:06 UTC 2017

George,

I've been an IPC member for over ten years, and I don't believe any of the
positions the IPC has ever advanced relies on, or is based upon, this INTA
survey.

As we know, INTA has legitimate concerns on behalf of the organizations and
consumers they serve, and stepped up to do this work because no else was
willing or able, including ICANN who has responsibility over this
multi-year, multi-million dollar initiative.

Let's be respectful for what INTA accomplished - which is historic.
Personally, I thought it was interesting to read the survey. Lori expressed
it is an ongoing learning effort, and future studies will be more refined
and tailored based on past experiences. Your input is helpful to that
process, as I understand you have already provided Lori with a list of
questions. If someone wants to raise the survey data during our
deliberations, let's take it up at that point as a group.

Hopefully, ICANN will start taking on the burden of measuring the full
extent of the social costs (and benefits) generated from their experiment -
perhaps with some of the quarter of a billion dollars generated from
auctions.

Only time will tell.

Best,
Claudio

On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 9:46 PM George Kirikos <icann at leap.com> wrote:

> Hi Paul,
>
> On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 8:57 PM, icannlists <icannlists at winston.com> wrote:
> > 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.
>
> I didn't rely *just* on my "personal opinions" about statistical
> theory. Go read the first post of this thread again, or read the
> subject of all the emails in this thread:
>
> http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2017-August/002438.html
>
> My citation is published work from INTA's own journal! That should be
> enough. If you want more, go to Google and search for articles on
> survey size. Obviously the judges in the TTAB cases (all public and
> cited in the article) would have had that basic statistics
> knowledge/evidence/authorities when they made their
> rulings/conclusion. Go and download the cited cases, and read them at
> your leisure.
>
> Or are you asserting that INTA made a mistake when they allowed that
> article talking about sample size to be included in their very own
> journal?
>
> In the first email of the prior thread:
>
> http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2017-August/002408.html
>
> Confidence interval calculations could be done easily from the
> supplied links. They're standard calculations (Kurt even calculated
> the 18% figure in his followup email).
>
> Raise your hand if you've been published in a peer-reviewed journal,
> like I have, in relation to statistics/econometrics/quantitative
> finance?
>
> http://www-2.rotman.utoronto.ca/~kan/research.htm
> http://www-2.rotman.utoronto.ca/~kan/papers/mom1.pdf
> http://www.powerfinance.com/convexity/ [no "stats" in this one, but it
> will give you a sense of the depth of my math knowledge; my company
> does own Math.com, remember?]
>
> and completed Ph.D. level courses in those areas? (I never finished my
> dissertation, as I got too distracted with making money outside
> academia)
>
> That doesn't make me an "authority" in statistics, but anyone with an
> iota of statistics education and objectivity should be able to see
> through this INTA study. I'm sure the lawyers in those TTAB cases
> argued long and hard, maybe even paying "experts" or "authorities" to
> attempt to assert that their small surveys had validity -- they lost.
>
> I'm not "trying to have it both ways". If someone uses a survey as the
> only foundation that supports their position -- it better be a
> statistically valid survey, if that's all they are relying upon to
> support their position.
>
> However, some positions (depending on the nature of the question at
> hand) don't require a "survey" at all, to be a positive contribution.
> I already gave 2 examples in the prior email (the ETRP, and the tiered
> pricing issue).
>
> In another PDP (the IGO one), I didn't need to "take a survey" to
> debunk the position that some IGOs were taking, that they were unable
> to use the UDRP (because of the mutual jurisdiction clause, which
> could affect their claimed immunity). Do you know what won the day?
> Going out and doing research, and actually finding examples of UDRPs
> where IGOs expressly participated! Same for their claimed "inability
> to waive immunity" -- it's kind of funny how that argument was
> debunked, after a little bit of research brought to light examples of
> the World Bank (an IGO) filing lawsuits in US court. I could go on,
> and on, but if you want other examples, feel free to email me outside
> this list.
>
> One doesn't need to "take a survey" to debunk the INTA study, because
> of its inherent flaws. Nor is one required to support my position on
> that topic. All of math, statistics, and INTA's own publication in its
> journal (which I expressly cited) about survey size support that
> position.
>
> What scientific citations have you introduced that support your strong
> belief that this INTA study should be given any weight, other than the
> study being supportive of your own position?
>
> 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 --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/attachments/20170902/5fbfdcf2/attachment.html>