<div><div dir="auto">I agree with Kristine. </div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">George, </div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Are you aware of other surveys commissioned on the costs imposed by the new gTLD program that we can review?</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Personally, I believe the responsibility of conducting this falls on ICANN, since ICANN is the organization that has responsibility over coordinating the DNS, introducing new gTLDs, and for the aftermath that follows.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Has the Board directed that these studies be commissioned? If not, why not? The organization has known about these issues for a long time, in fact, the call for economic study was one of the main issues identified during implementation of the program.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">In my view, INTA and those who expended the time and energy to complete this work, should be commended for taking on this substantial and complex task.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Mary's note described the context of this work, and Lori stated that feedback and constructive criticism is both welcome and encouraged. </div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">As a result, I am confident we are following the right path.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Best,</div><div dir="auto">Claudio</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div class="gmail_quote"><div>On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 5:23 PM Dorrain, Kristine via gnso-rpm-wg <<a href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org">gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Hi George,<br>
<br>
As I recall, no one has offered this survey into evidence as conclusive proof of anything. Both subteams (sunrise and claims) called for the WG to review as many data sources as possible, including mere anecdotes. Both subteams were well aware of the limited data available for scrutiny. I think your (and Kurt's) observations are meaningful, in that they will spark a relevant discussion, but that does not mean the WG should ignore the user stories. Thirty-three companies took significant time and resources to provide their feedback and it's incumbent upon us to at least listen.<br>
<br>
This WG, though the co-chairs, have asked Lori to present the survey. I think our responsibility here is to listen respectfully and determine what we may be able to use or build on.<br>
<br>
Thanks,<br>
<br>
Kristine<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
-----Original Message-----<br>
From: <a href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank">gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org</a> [mailto:<a href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank">gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org</a>] On Behalf Of George Kirikos<br>
Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2017 1:35 PM<br>
To: gnso-rpm-wg <<a href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org" target="_blank">gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org</a>><br>
Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Critique of INTA survey<br>
<br>
Hi Theo,<br>
<br>
On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 4:23 PM, theo geurts <<a href="mailto:gtheo@xs4all.nl" target="_blank">gtheo@xs4all.nl</a>> wrote:<br>
> From my perspective, there is this survey that George questions due to<br>
> the low amount of participants.<br>
<br>
It wasn't just the small sample size. It's also the fact that it's a non-random, self-selected and entirely unrepresentative sample.<br>
<br>
For example, if you wanted to determine the average height of adults in the USA, and survey 3000 current or former NBA players, that would be a large sample size. However, it would fail the other part, namely being non-random, entirely unrepresentative of the entire population of adults, etc.<br>
<br>
The combination of both defects in the INTA study (small sample size, and also non-random) makes the study essentially worthless for saying anything about the larger population it purports to represent.<br>
<br>
Lori talked about "Everything we do is a learning." The only learning that will happen tonight, unfortunately, is a lesson in how not to a proper survey. That might be of some value, in helping to design the future surveys (e.g. making them much shorter, to encourage greater number of responses; doing proper randomization, like the other study I mentioned in my first email of this thread, investing more money, etc.). Nielsen obviously knows how to do things right -- they're a highly respectable organization. Unfortunately in this instance, what they produced can't withstand scrutiny.<br>
<br>
Sincerely,<br>
<br>
George Kirikos<br>
416-588-0269<br>
<a href="http://www.leap.com/" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.leap.com/</a><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
gnso-rpm-wg mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org" target="_blank">gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg</a><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
gnso-rpm-wg mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org" target="_blank">gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg</a><br>
</blockquote></div></div>