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

[Phil Corwin]

The personal view of this co-chair is that the INTA report, while not based upon a large enough sample to have reliable statistical validity, nonetheless provides some useful anecdotal perspective. 

I was not particularly surprised by its findings that new gTLDs generated additional trademark defense costs, and that most new gTLD registrations were for defensive purposes, for and by the reporting entities. Indeed, I would have been surprised if the opposite had been reported.

While the INTA report was seeking to answer the question of what expenses were generated by new gTLDs, and not evaluate the efficacy of the accompanying RPMs, I did think that this portion is particularly relevant to our work (from slide 14):
		
	RPM's are Helpful
	
	Two-thirds of the respondents surveyed feel that UDRPs and
	required sunrise periods have helped mitigate risks to a
	major/moderate extent. Of those who think that RPMs are
	effective the ranking is as follows:

	UDRP 67%
	Sunrise 64%
	Claims 36%
	URS 27%
	PDDRP/RRDRP/PICDRP 15%

As noted in a prior email, your co-chairs are working with staff to develop a proposal for reliable data surveys that can assist in providing a sound basis for our ultimate answers to Charter questions.

Best to all

Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal
Virtualaw LLC
1155 F Street, NW
Suite 1050
Washington, DC 20004
202-559-8597/Direct
202-559-8750/Fax
202-255-6172/Cell

Twitter: @VlawDC
 
"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey


-----Original Message-----
From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Jonathan_agmon icann
Sent: Monday, September 04, 2017 4:28 AM
To: Paul Keating; jonathan matkowsky
Cc: gnso-rpm-wg
Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Directly from INTA's website: What the TTAB has to say about sample size

Paul,

>From my perspective, the survey is the survey. Its limitations have been put forward clearly in writing and during Lori's presentation. I would like to believe that we can each make up our minds what weight to give to any document provided, not just by INTA but also by others. 

What I find difficult to agree with is your statement that "[t]here is not even a sufficient basis to believe it actually reflects the opinion of 30 some-odd trademark holders." What "sufficient basis" you require? Are you saying that INTA fabricated the results? Are you not going too far there?

Thanks,



-----Original Message-----
From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Paul Keating
Sent: Saturday, September 2, 2017 6:10 PM
To: jonathan matkowsky <jonathan.matkowsky at riskiq.net>
Cc: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Directly from INTA's website: What the TTAB has to say about sample size

Jonathan

"And I don't think we should get distracted by the extent to which the survey reflects all INTA members as for many, it carries extraordinary significance without needing to get bogged down any further."

This embodies exactly the point I and I believe George are trying to make.   The study is not a study because it fails to meet any form of statistical standards. However you and others apparently believe it "carries extraordinary significance". 

I'm sorry but the lack of compliance with statistical norms means the survey results cannot be relied on for any purpose. There is not even a sufficient basis to believe it actually reflects the opinion of 30 some-odd trademark holders.  

So keep it if you wish but please let's all recognize its true worth. 



Sincerely,
Paul Keating, Esq.

> On Sep 2, 2017, at 5:34 AM, jonathan matkowsky <jonathan.matkowsky at riskiq.net> wrote:
> 
> And I don't think we should get distracted by the extent to which the 
> survey reflects all INTA members as for many, it carries extraordinary 
> significance without needing to get bogged down any further
_______________________________________________
gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg

************************************************************************************
This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer viruses.
************************************************************************************


_______________________________________________
gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg