<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<!--[if !mso]><style>v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</style><![endif]--><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
        {font-family:"Cambria Math";
        panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
        {font-family:Calibri;
        panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
        {margin:0in;
        margin-bottom:.0001pt;
        font-size:12.0pt;
        font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
        {mso-style-priority:99;
        color:blue;
        text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
        {mso-style-priority:99;
        color:purple;
        text-decoration:underline;}
p.msonormal0, li.msonormal0, div.msonormal0
        {mso-style-name:msonormal;
        mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
        margin-right:0in;
        mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
        margin-left:0in;
        font-size:12.0pt;
        font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
span.EmailStyle19
        {mso-style-type:personal-reply;
        font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
        color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
        {mso-style-type:export-only;
        font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
        {size:8.5in 11.0in;
        margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
        {page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Georges,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">I am going to ask that all tough questions be put in writing so I can review and discuss with the survey’s administrators if I can’t answer them myself. As you noted, there
is a low response rate and the analysis is complex and may not apply to this group’s work. If you have your questions already formulated, please submit them to the list.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Lori<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#595959">Lori S. Schulman<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#595959">Senior Director, Internet Policy<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#595959">International Trademark Association (INTA)<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#595959">+1-202-704-0408, Skype: lsschulman<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>George Kirikos<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, August 30, 2017 3:29 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Critique of INTA survey<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Lori,<br>
<br>
It is false to say the my comments have any bias or hostility. They<br>
are sound arguments. I was open to it being a scientifically valid<br>
survey, but then I read it, multiple times. So did Kurt (maybe not<br>
multiple times for him!?!?), who I have no affiliation with.<br>
<br>
I don't know whether the working group chairs were aware of the<br>
study's deep flaws before they made the invitation to present it, or<br>
had even read it, but now they do. If they want to keep the schedule,<br>
I'll be there to ask the tough questions tonight, and let the PDP<br>
members that want to try to defend it do so.<br>
<br>
Sincerely,<br>
<br>
George Kirikos<br>
416-588-0269<br>
<a href="http://www.leap.com/">http://www.leap.com/</a><br>
<br>
<br>
On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 3:22 PM, Lori Schulman <<a href="mailto:lschulman@inta.org%3e">lschulman@inta.org></a> wrote:<br>
> Dear All,<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> This working group chairs requested that I present INTA’s survey results and<br>
> that I what I intend to do. I am here to present existing data. It is up<br>
> to the group to decide if there is any value here. George comments show<br>
> immediate bias and hostility toward the work before we have even started a<br>
> discussion. I have stated all along that the study was intended for another<br>
> purpose and that we had challenges with conducting it. If the PDP WG<br>
> wishes to exclude the findings that is for the group to decide. Everything<br>
> we do is a learning. George, if you feel that this evening’s call will<br>
> have little or no value to your participation, you have the option of not<br>
> dialing in and listening to the recording at your convenience.<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> Lori<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> Lori S. Schulman<br>
><br>
> Senior Director, Internet Policy<br>
><br>
> International Trademark Association (INTA)<br>
><br>
> +1-202-704-0408, Skype: lsschulman<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> From: <a href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org">gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org</a> [<a href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org">mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org</a>]<br>
> On Behalf Of George Kirikos<br>
> Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2017 3:05 PM<br>
> To: gnso-rpm-wg <<a href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org%3e">gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org></a><br>
> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Critique of INTA survey<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> P.S. There are roughly 8 hours to go until our scheduled call. I would<br>
> invite Lori and/or INTA to simply withdraw the paper from this PDP<br>
> (and the other ICANN group to which it was presented), since<br>
> ultimately it is not a scientifically valid study. Any conclusions<br>
> from it are indefensible.<br>
><br>
> It would bring more credibility to INTA to withdraw it, in my opinion,<br>
> recognizing it as deeply flawed now, rather than to attempt to defend<br>
> it for 90 minutes tonight, and ultimately see it abandoned/ignored by<br>
> the PDP. As a group, we're always seeking efficiencies --- withdrawing<br>
> this paper and giving everyone back their Wednesday night appears to<br>
> me to be "low hanging fruit" in that regard.<br>
><br>
> The sooner it's withdrawn, the more time folks will have to make<br>
> arrangements to enjoy their Wednesday evening.<br>
><br>
> Sincerely,<br>
><br>
> George Kirikos<br>
> 416-588-0269<br>
> <a href="http://www.leap.com/">http://www.leap.com/</a><br>
><br>
><br>
> On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 2:13 PM, George Kirikos <<a href="mailto:icann@leap.com%3e">icann@leap.com></a> wrote:<br>
>> Hi Kurt,<br>
>><br>
>> Thanks for mostly agreeing with my analysis. However:<br>
>><br>
>> On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 1:47 PM, Kurt Pritz <<a href="mailto:kurt@kjpritz.com%3e">kurt@kjpritz.com></a> wrote:<br>
>>> There was one conclusion I could draw. It states that UDRP and Sunrise<br>
>>> were<br>
>>> the favored rights protection mechanisms, used to a major or moderate<br>
>>> extent<br>
>>> by 67% and 64% of the respondents respectively. The next most utilized<br>
>>> RPMs<br>
>>> were Trademark Claims and URS (by 36% and 27% respectively). To me this<br>
>>> says<br>
>>> that, to those who are in-the-know, Sunrise is a highly-valued RPM and,<br>
>>> therefore, should be continued. (Sorry, George) (see slides 15 and 51)<br>
>><br>
>> The first part of your conclusion is correct (obviously anyone who<br>
>> personally benefits from "front of the line" privileges is going to<br>
>> value it), but the second part (therefore, that it should be<br>
>> continued) is NOT correct. As a PDP, our job is to weigh the benefits<br>
>> against the costs of policy choices amongst ALL stakeholders, not just<br>
>> ones receiving benefits.<br>
>><br>
>> Thus, if that was "the one conclusion (you) could draw", and it's now<br>
>> debunked, then we're left with the truth, that no conclusions can be<br>
>> drawn from it --- it's for entertainment value only, i.e. it's an<br>
>> advocacy piece, marketing fluff, not a scientifically-valid survey<br>
>> that would endure any serious peer review from those in the field of<br>
>> statistics.<br>
>><br>
>> To be clear, I tried to keep yesterday's email as short as possible<br>
>> (remember, it was a response to a very long document), and didn't<br>
>> point out every flaw with the survey. To point out another, note that<br>
>> on page 6 it notes that 67% of responses were from USA and Canada.<br>
>> However, INTA's own website states that:<br>
>><br>
>> <a href="https://www.inta.org/Membership/Pages/Membership.aspx">https://www.inta.org/Membership/Pages/Membership.aspx</a><br>
>><br>
>> "63% of our member organizations are outside of North America."<br>
>><br>
>> This further reinforces my point that it was an unrepresentative<br>
>> sample. As we know from election polling, the survey companies make<br>
>> adjustments in weighting to attempt to compensate for the<br>
>> unrepresentative samples (e.g. if too many men were sampled relative<br>
>> to the known proportion, they'd lower the weights accordingly, etc.).<br>
>> No attempts were made to do this (nor could they credibly have done<br>
>> so, given the small sample size, and lack of randomness).<br>
>><br>
>> This is a classic case of "If you torture the data long enough, it<br>
>> will confess to anything."<br>
>><br>
>> Sincerely,<br>
>><br>
>> George Kirikos<br>
>> 416-588-0269<br>
>> <a href="http://www.leap.com/">http://www.leap.com/</a><br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> gnso-rpm-wg mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org">gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org</a><br>
> <a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg</a><br>
><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
gnso-rpm-wg mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org">gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg</a><br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<div class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center">
</body>
</html>