December 2018 - Gnso-rpm-sunrise

Actions & Notes: RPM Sunrise Sub Team Meeting 12 Dec 1800 UTC
by Julie Hedlund Dec. 12, 2018

Dec. 12, 2018

Dear All, Please see below the action items and notes captured by staff from the RPM Sunrise Sub Team meeting held on 12 December 2018 (18:00-19:00 UTC). Staff have posted to the wiki space the action items and notes. Please note that these are high-level notes and are not meant as a substitute for the recording, chat room, or transcript. The recording, AC chat, transcript and attendance records are posted on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/2018-12-12+Sub+Team+for+Su…. See also the survey analysis tool: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1aBw-dW2gBzvBfhUgl3u6ShWlPZt0yyNF-Vs…. Best Regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director == NOTES & ACTION ITEMS Actions: Staff to add original numbering to the agreed questions. (DONE) Sub Team members to volunteer or nominate candidates for Sub Team leader. (ONGOING) Sub Team members: By Wednesday, 19 December 2018, analyze whether / how the data in Row 28-32 of the "TM & Brand Owners" tab answer the agreed question 5, sub question 5(a), and all the sub questions of 5(a), in the spreadsheet at: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1aBw-dW2gBzvBfhUgl3u6ShWlPZt0yyNF-Vs…. (BY 19 DEC) See: Question 5 (Final Charter Questions for Sunrise & Trademark Claims RPMs for Which Data is Being Sought) (a) Does the current 30-day minimum for a Sunrise Period serve its intended purpose, particularly in view of the fact that many registry operators actually ran a 60-day Sunrise Period? • Are there any unintended results? • Does the ability of Registry Operators to expand their Sunrise Periods create uniformity concerns that should be addressed by this WG? • Are there any benefits observed when the Sunrise Period is extended beyond 30 days? • Are there any disadvantages? Notes: 1. Review agenda/Statements of Interest: No updates. 2. Select Sub Team Leader: Take as an action item to ask for volunteers/nominations on the list. 3. Introduction to the survey analysis tool: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1aBw-dW2gBzvBfhUgl3u6ShWlPZt0yyNF-Vs… -- Column A: Questions based on the refined charter questions. -- Column B: Actual survey question (but without the logic). -- Some questions are asked of both actual and potential registrants, and some are related. -- Column C: Sub Team's draft question. -- Column D: Actual registrant response. -- Column E: Potential registrant response -- Column F: Findings from Analysis Group. -- Look at the table -- there are some dividers -- noting what relates to Trademark Claims and Sunrise. -- Sunrise: TM & Brand owners and Registry & Registrars. 4. Begin survey analysis: -- Suggest looking at the questions across both surveys to see how the data answer/don't answer the questions. -- Include link to the spreadsheet and indicate the questions/tabs. -- Start at column A, row 27 -- registry operator pricing, overarching questions. -- Review the data across the TM & Brand owners

1 0

Re: [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] Statistical issues/validity of the Analysis Group survey results
by Susan Payne Dec. 12, 2018

Dec. 12, 2018

Copying both mailing lists to avoid duplicative threads. I agree with Greg. George has raised this extensively during two F2F meetings and on follow-up phone calls. For those who need the reminder, he has also reiterated his views below. Many others expressed the view that some data is better than none and that as a group we are capable of giving this an appropriate weight. This issue has had substantial airtime therefore and it is time for the subgroups to get on with their substantive work, without having to spend further time on this particular issue. Susan Sent from my iPad On 12 Dec 2018, at 16:58, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote: All, George has provided his opinions regarding the surveys, including his opinion as to a conclusion. I think these were well-known beforehand. It may be useful to some in the group to have this lengthy compendium (which was cut-and-pasted to both subgroups). While these opinions were expressed at great length and have been widely disseminated, that does not mean these opinions are widely shared in the group (or even narrowly shared...). I disagree with these opinions. While surveys with smaller sample sizes should not be treated identically to those with larger sample sizes, surveys with smaller sample sizes still produce results that valid, useful and informative. Significant weight can still be attached to these results and it’s entirely appropriate to use the survey analysis tools for these results. Surveys and polls are conducted for wildly different reasons. If we were attempting to predict the outcome of a contested election, these sample sizes might be deemed inadequate. But this is a different exercise, and the sample size was reasonable for this purpose. Yes, a larger sample size would have allowed for more fine-grained conclusions, but we can still see strong tendencies in the data. Smaller sample sizes are also appropriate where one is seeking qualitative and experiential data, rather than solely looking for quantitative proportional relationships to a high degree of accuracy. I hope we can get past this issue (if it is an issue) quickly so we can get on to substance. Procedurally, I would also hope the co-chairs can figure out how to avoid two parallel discussions based on the same “original post.” This would seem to be a recipe for wasted time and inconsistent discussions. I hope that those chairing these discussions can exercise some control over the agenda, so we can do our work. Best regards, Greg On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 8:35 PM George Kirikos <icann(a)leap.com<mailto:icann@leap.com>> wrote: Hi folks, To prepare for tomorrow's call, I analyzed the multiple previous calls we had regarding the Analysis Group survey results (October 21, October 22, and November 28, 2018). Sub team members might want to review the transcripts too, as an in-depth review of the transcripts and materials demonstrates that little or no weight should be attached to the results, and so it really calls into question the use of the "survey analysis tools" for those results. Below are some key snippets: ***** October 21, RPM Working Group Session 2 ***** https://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/transcript-gnso-rpm-session-2-21oct18-en… a) Bottom of page 6: I specifically ask about how they determined sample size, etc. Answer (which goes into page 7): "No, that's a really good question, George, and I appreciate it. I mean, I think that the - I have a couple of thoughts and responses to what you were raising and I essentially kind of, well, I won't say agree with everything but I think I do. You know, it's - given the available budget for this project, it was difficult for or I think it would have been impossible for us to get the number of responses that one would have wanted to have to kind of - relatively small margin of errors on each of the different estimates in the, you know, that we ultimately kind of were able to provide in the various tables in the report. And so I wouldn't say that this is a statistically representative sample and I wouldn't say that it comes with small margins of error but I would say that the trends, at least that we're seeing in the data, I would say are informative. I wouldn't, you know, hang my hat if my life depended on it in terms of relying on these results but I think you see some pretty clear trends, at least with respect to the registrants, the potential registrant and the trademark surveys. " "But George, and I think just to go back to your point, it's very well taken. You know, I think for the registrant, the potential registrant and the trademark surveys, given the number of responses that we received, I feel pretty confident about what those results are saying with respect to how people view various components of the rights protection mechanisms. Sorry. " "And but, with respect to the registries and the registrars, where we received a very small number of respondents, I would view that data as more anecdotal than anything else." [admits that it's not a statistically representative sample; note how the statement of "confident about what the results are saying" is entirely inconsistent with the later answers about statistical confidence levels for November 28, 2018 meeting!, also incorrectly talks about "trends", see October 22, 2018 call snippet below that directly addresses the "trends" issue] b) Page 10: survey was done in English, excluded Asian countries which dominate new gTLDs! George Kirikos: Thanks, George Kirikos for the transcript. Given the actual distribution, country by country, of new gTLDs, particularly the high concentration of registrants from China, I was wondering if there was any thought given to doing the survey of, you know, Asian and Chinese in particular registrants, because they obviously outnumber registrants from other countries? So was there any thought given to translating the survey into Chinese and getting their feedback? Thank you. Ariel Liang: This is Ariel from staff. Thanks for the question, George, but based on our budget limitation and discussion with Analysis Group and translating is really out of our capability in terms of the resources allocated, so we have to do the English but we did encourage our colleagues, especially in the GSC, to distribute the survey to countries outside English-speaking countries and then just tried to promote it as widely as possible. So mainly because of the budget resources, that's why we couldn't do that translation. c) page 13: admission that this was not a random sample George Kirikos: Yes, George Kirikos for the transcript. I'd actually like to go to the page directly before that, which is Page number 10, where you could actually look at the demographics of the countries. You can see, for example, that Canada represented 12% of the sample, which is the exact same percentage of the United States. We know that Canada has one tenth of the population of the United States, so do you actually believe that this is a randomly sampled, representative sample based on the fact that these proportions are way out of whack with the actual distribution, country by country? Thank you. Greg Rafert: Yes and I would say that it is not a random sample d) page 14: we learn responses for panel survey were 75 cents/survey George Kirikos: Yes, George Kirikos here. Yes, that fraction seems very high to me and we would actually know, from the experience of the registrars, what the actual figures should be. I want to actually ask about the composition of the panel sample, I think it said somewhere in the report that these were people that were paid small amounts to participate in the survey. I know from Mechanical Turk and other things, other survey systems like that, you have a bunch of people that can take a survey for $2 or $3 and you know, make extra money in their spare time and self-qualify for the survey, declare that they are registrants, et cetera in order to make an extra few bucks. Can you tell us exactly how much the panel sample was paid per response? Thank you. Greg Rafert: I believe they were paid 75 cents. There's some variation based on the country so I think it can go as much as like a $1.25 or $1.50 but it's around 75 cents. e) page 17: obvious illogical answers contaminated the data Paul Keating: (Paul Keating), for the record. Just a quick question, because you said that people could select multiple responses here. If someone had responded with a response to a question that you - basically concludes they don't know what they're - they don't understand the issue, did you eliminate those from the statistics used if they happened to also have responded to the first two? So in other words, if someone responded to one of the first two, but then clearly responded to the last two, it seems logical that you would disregard that entire response. Thank you. Greg Rafert: Yes, that's a good point. We have not, and I think we should. Similarly on page 29: Woman 6: To the same question that was asked earlier, I think by Paul, if somebody answered yes to all of these, are you going to go back and kind of eliminate that? Greg Rafert: Yes, I think it's a really good suggestion change - suggested change. [unclear whether that's been done or not] f) page 32: members of this PDP *not* prevented from answering survey!! George Kirikos: George Kirikos for the transcript. Do - there's an echo. There's still an echo. Better now. I wanted to ask whether members of this PDP were prevented from doing - filling out this survey or is there overlap in membership of this PDP and answers to the survey? Thank you. Greg Rafert: So they were not prevented from taking the survey. ***** October 22, 2018: RPM Working Group Session 3 ***** https://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/transcript-gnso-rpm-session-3-22oct18-en… g) page 10: incorrect claim that there are "trends", another admission of not a statistically representative sample Greg Rafert: ... I think there are some useful trends and interesting data points that we've identified in the survey. But I certainly would not say that this is a statistically representative sample of registry operators, for example. h) page 13: need to be careful due to the low number of responses Greg Rafert:... I want to be of course careful with kind of how we interpret any of the results coming out of this because very few individuals actually responded to it... i) pages 17-18: Paul Keating asks about the small sample; admissions about lack of statistical validity Paul Keating: (V) Paul. Paul Keating. I have a question. It's directed at - I'm trying to solicit from you a little bit of guidance. This was a survey. A lot of work went into it, both by members of the sub teams and by yourselves. But we had a pretty small survey universe and there would be, if someone were to look at it from a statistically valid standpoint, it wouldn’t be considered very - it wouldn’t be given lots of weight. Let's put it that way. So what would - how do you think we ought to take this information and how much importance should we be placing on individual responses versus the report as a whole? Thank you. Greg Rafert: I think it's a really good question. I agree. I certainly wouldn't ascribe any kind of statistical validity to the survey instrument. I would kind of view it as part of the process. I've worked on a couple of ICANN reviews and within the context of a given ICANN review, we do surveys, we do interviews, we talk to other participants within the ICANN community. We read kind of external past year materials and reports. And so the survey is kind of one component of that data collection exercise and thinking about the problem. And we kind of - it's not weighted more or less than any of those pieces. We kind of think about it as a holistic exercise and seeing are we identifying trends that we've also kind of heard about from just discussions with people in the industry, for example. So I would view it -- and I don’t know if this is helpful or not -- I would view it as a piece of information. I think there's some interesting trends in some of the questions. Is that the exact state of the world? So is it really that 55% of all registry operators believe X? Probably not but it might give you an indication as to kind of where people's views and beliefs are headed. Paul Keating: This is Paul Keating following up. So it's more anecdotal than anything else? Greg Rafert: Certainly for the registry operator and registrar surveys I would say that it's anecdotal information. It can be informative but you have to kind of look at it through the lens of there being not a large number of responses. For the trademark owner potential registrant and registrant surveys, one thing we don’t have a large enough sample to say that it's statistically valid. But given the higher response rates there, especially for the potential registrants, I say it begins to move away from the world of anecdotes and to be something a little bit more. Paul McGrady: This is Paul McGrady for the record. Just to follow-up on the real Paul's question, which is what is better, what we have here, or no information? Right, is it better to have this, anecdotal information perhaps for the contracted parties, something more than an anecdotal for the rest. Is that a - in terms of decision making, is it better to have this or is it better to have nothing? Greg Rafert: I at least think so. I think it's of course largely up for you all to decide but I would think that it's better than having no information. j) pages 22-23: I call out the issue of whether this report actually identifies "trends", and we also learn the budget for the survey Ariel Liang: ..And then there is a question from George Kirikos for Greg. Greg has a PhD so I trust that he can answer this. Would Greg confirm that trends refer to changes of data over time and this survey was a one-time survey. Thus, isn't it entire incorrect to claim that this survey is an indicator of a trend when there is no way to detect change over time from a single survey? And then he also asked another question. What was the actual budget for this survey? Sorry, this is Ariel Liang from staff. We can probably answer George's second question. The actual budget is $50,000. Greg Rafert: And to your first question, George, yes, I was being a little loose with my language in terms of using the word trends. So I definitely did not mean to imply or suggest that we're looking at changes in perceptions or people's views over time. k) page 25-26: Paul Keating also inquires about the issue of members of this PDP filling out the survey Paul Keating: Hi, Paul Keating for the record and I'm not trying to add controversy where none needs to be but I was just thinking about Paul's comment about more information is better than no information. And I remember that yesterday, you didn't have a restriction on at least the council's participation in the survey as prohibiting someone who is in the working group already from participating in in the survey. So I'm wondering how many people in any of those questions participated who were actually working group members. And the only reason is that if we're going to allocate importance in any degree to the survey, want to make sure that we're not double counting people, right, because we have our own opinions during the working group and working group sessions. And I don't want there to be a perceived even concept out there that certain people, whether it's on the domain registrant side or the trademark claimant side were in the survey pumping up the results so that effectively their position during the working group could be sustained to a higher degree of importance. So if you could verify that, if there's any way of verifying it, or just simply asking people -- members of the working group -- whether or not they participated in the survey that would answer the question and eliminate a potential source of conflict and suspicion. Thank you. Greg Rafert: So to verify, we would need them to identify to us that they took the survey and we can also identify the responses as long as they gave us some sense for - assuming they remembered how they answered certain questions. And maybe that latter part is not possible. l) page 31: admission that there's not a representative sample of trademark owners for this survey Ariel Liang: This is Ariel from staff. There is a question from George Kirikos. I'd like to point Greg to Page A2-526. Is that a representative sample of the entire universe of trademark holders given the number of firms who - and with revenues in billions of dollars? And he has a follow-up. Greg Rafert: Yes, I would say it is not a representative sample of trademark owners. ***** November 28, 2018 RPM PDP Working Group meeting ***** https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/2018-11-28+Review+of+all+R… https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/99483940/Questions%20%26%2… m) no statistical confidence intervals, margin of errors! Question (by George Kirikos, page 5): None of the tables include the asserted “margin of error” numbers in the current draft of the final report. Please provide them at a 95% confidence level. [one can use a standard calculator such as https://www.surveymonkey.com/mp/margin-oferror-calculator/ to do this; if it’s too much work to do this for all tables, please advise what your “population” or “universe” number is, and calculate the margin of error for tables: Q1a (page 10), Q6 (page 12), Q6a (page 12), Q6a.i (page 13), Q8 (page 15), Q9 (page 21), Q4a (page 32), Q21 (page 38), Q21a.i. (page 39), Q5 (page 43) Q2 (page 47), and Q13b (page 53). Answer (from the Analysis Group): "Due to the opt-in nature of the surveys and issues that arise in defining the proper population for some of the respondent groups, we do not feel it would be proper to provide confidence intervals or margins of error for these results." n) from November 28, 2018 call transcript, page 6, no anti-fraud measures! https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/transcrip… George Kirikos: ...So I was wondering whether the list of questions and answers that we saw was complete. Or whether there are also these anti-fraud questions that were inter-mingled in the survey. To try to deter that kind of abuse. " Answer (transcript says "Greg Shatan", but should be "Greg Rafert" obviously): "Yes, this is Greg. There were no anti-fraud questions in the survey since we were just trying to keep it to be as short as possible. I don't think we will saw much evidence of people randomly answering questions in the survey. Generally, the ways in which people answered questions were pretty consistent. And I think, you know, we can certainly look into this two that received cease and desist letters. It's possible that we were mistaken in stating that. But if they did we can certainly look if there are any kind of other fishy responses by those two individuals. Thanks." (Key part of the above: No anti-fraud questions! Results obviously identified (previous to that part of the transcript) that folks from the panel were simply providing random answers that don't correspond to observable real world event proportions (i.e. lawsuits, UDRPs, etc.), in order to earn their 75 cent payouts as quickly as possible) In conclusion, there were serious issues with this survey, and it'd be difficult to attach any weight at all to the results. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ _______________________________________________ Gnso-rpm-trademark mailing list Gnso-rpm-trademark(a)icann.org<mailto:Gnso-rpm-trademark@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-trademark _______________________________________________ Gnso-rpm-trademark mailing list Gnso-rpm-trademark(a)icann.org<mailto:Gnso-rpm-trademark@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-trademark

2 1

Statistical issues/validity of the Analysis Group survey results
by George Kirikos Dec. 12, 2018

Dec. 12, 2018

Hi folks, To prepare for tomorrow's call, I analyzed the multiple previous calls we had regarding the Analysis Group survey results (October 21, October 22, and November 28, 2018). Sub team members might want to review the transcripts too, as an in-depth review of the transcripts and materials demonstrates that little or no weight should be attached to the results, and so it really calls into question the use of the "survey analysis tools" for those results. Below are some key snippets: ***** October 21, RPM Working Group Session 2 ***** https://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/transcript-gnso-rpm-session-2-21oct18-en… a) Bottom of page 6: I specifically ask about how they determined sample size, etc. Answer (which goes into page 7): "No, that's a really good question, George, and I appreciate it. I mean, I think that the - I have a couple of thoughts and responses to what you were raising and I essentially kind of, well, I won't say agree with everything but I think I do. You know, it's - given the available budget for this project, it was difficult for or I think it would have been impossible for us to get the number of responses that one would have wanted to have to kind of - relatively small margin of errors on each of the different estimates in the, you know, that we ultimately kind of were able to provide in the various tables in the report. And so I wouldn't say that this is a statistically representative sample and I wouldn't say that it comes with small margins of error but I would say that the trends, at least that we're seeing in the data, I would say are informative. I wouldn't, you know, hang my hat if my life depended on it in terms of relying on these results but I think you see some pretty clear trends, at least with respect to the registrants, the potential registrant and the trademark surveys. " "But George, and I think just to go back to your point, it's very well taken. You know, I think for the registrant, the potential registrant and the trademark surveys, given the number of responses that we received, I feel pretty confident about what those results are saying with respect to how people view various components of the rights protection mechanisms. Sorry. " "And but, with respect to the registries and the registrars, where we received a very small number of respondents, I would view that data as more anecdotal than anything else." [admits that it's not a statistically representative sample; note how the statement of "confident about what the results are saying" is entirely inconsistent with the later answers about statistical confidence levels for November 28, 2018 meeting!, also incorrectly talks about "trends", see October 22, 2018 call snippet below that directly addresses the "trends" issue] b) Page 10: survey was done in English, excluded Asian countries which dominate new gTLDs! George Kirikos: Thanks, George Kirikos for the transcript. Given the actual distribution, country by country, of new gTLDs, particularly the high concentration of registrants from China, I was wondering if there was any thought given to doing the survey of, you know, Asian and Chinese in particular registrants, because they obviously outnumber registrants from other countries? So was there any thought given to translating the survey into Chinese and getting their feedback? Thank you. Ariel Liang: This is Ariel from staff. Thanks for the question, George, but based on our budget limitation and discussion with Analysis Group and translating is really out of our capability in terms of the resources allocated, so we have to do the English but we did encourage our colleagues, especially in the GSC, to distribute the survey to countries outside English-speaking countries and then just tried to promote it as widely as possible. So mainly because of the budget resources, that's why we couldn't do that translation. c) page 13: admission that this was not a random sample George Kirikos: Yes, George Kirikos for the transcript. I'd actually like to go to the page directly before that, which is Page number 10, where you could actually look at the demographics of the countries. You can see, for example, that Canada represented 12% of the sample, which is the exact same percentage of the United States. We know that Canada has one tenth of the population of the United States, so do you actually believe that this is a randomly sampled, representative sample based on the fact that these proportions are way out of whack with the actual distribution, country by country? Thank you. Greg Rafert: Yes and I would say that it is not a random sample d) page 14: we learn responses for panel survey were 75 cents/survey George Kirikos: Yes, George Kirikos here. Yes, that fraction seems very high to me and we would actually know, from the experience of the registrars, what the actual figures should be. I want to actually ask about the composition of the panel sample, I think it said somewhere in the report that these were people that were paid small amounts to participate in the survey. I know from Mechanical Turk and other things, other survey systems like that, you have a bunch of people that can take a survey for $2 or $3 and you know, make extra money in their spare time and self-qualify for the survey, declare that they are registrants, et cetera in order to make an extra few bucks. Can you tell us exactly how much the panel sample was paid per response? Thank you. Greg Rafert: I believe they were paid 75 cents. There's some variation based on the country so I think it can go as much as like a $1.25 or $1.50 but it's around 75 cents. e) page 17: obvious illogical answers contaminated the data Paul Keating: (Paul Keating), for the record. Just a quick question, because you said that people could select multiple responses here. If someone had responded with a response to a question that you - basically concludes they don't know what they're - they don't understand the issue, did you eliminate those from the statistics used if they happened to also have responded to the first two? So in other words, if someone responded to one of the first two, but then clearly responded to the last two, it seems logical that you would disregard that entire response. Thank you. Greg Rafert: Yes, that's a good point. We have not, and I think we should. Similarly on page 29: Woman 6: To the same question that was asked earlier, I think by Paul, if somebody answered yes to all of these, are you going to go back and kind of eliminate that? Greg Rafert: Yes, I think it's a really good suggestion change - suggested change. [unclear whether that's been done or not] f) page 32: members of this PDP *not* prevented from answering survey!! George Kirikos: George Kirikos for the transcript. Do - there's an echo. There's still an echo. Better now. I wanted to ask whether members of this PDP were prevented from doing - filling out this survey or is there overlap in membership of this PDP and answers to the survey? Thank you. Greg Rafert: So they were not prevented from taking the survey. ***** October 22, 2018: RPM Working Group Session 3 ***** https://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/transcript-gnso-rpm-session-3-22oct18-en… g) page 10: incorrect claim that there are "trends", another admission of not a statistically representative sample Greg Rafert: ... I think there are some useful trends and interesting data points that we've identified in the survey. But I certainly would not say that this is a statistically representative sample of registry operators, for example. h) page 13: need to be careful due to the low number of responses Greg Rafert:... I want to be of course careful with kind of how we interpret any of the results coming out of this because very few individuals actually responded to it... i) pages 17-18: Paul Keating asks about the small sample; admissions about lack of statistical validity Paul Keating: (V) Paul. Paul Keating. I have a question. It's directed at - I'm trying to solicit from you a little bit of guidance. This was a survey. A lot of work went into it, both by members of the sub teams and by yourselves. But we had a pretty small survey universe and there would be, if someone were to look at it from a statistically valid standpoint, it wouldn’t be considered very - it wouldn’t be given lots of weight. Let's put it that way. So what would - how do you think we ought to take this information and how much importance should we be placing on individual responses versus the report as a whole? Thank you. Greg Rafert: I think it's a really good question. I agree. I certainly wouldn't ascribe any kind of statistical validity to the survey instrument. I would kind of view it as part of the process. I've worked on a couple of ICANN reviews and within the context of a given ICANN review, we do surveys, we do interviews, we talk to other participants within the ICANN community. We read kind of external past year materials and reports. And so the survey is kind of one component of that data collection exercise and thinking about the problem. And we kind of - it's not weighted more or less than any of those pieces. We kind of think about it as a holistic exercise and seeing are we identifying trends that we've also kind of heard about from just discussions with people in the industry, for example. So I would view it -- and I don’t know if this is helpful or not -- I would view it as a piece of information. I think there's some interesting trends in some of the questions. Is that the exact state of the world? So is it really that 55% of all registry operators believe X? Probably not but it might give you an indication as to kind of where people's views and beliefs are headed. Paul Keating: This is Paul Keating following up. So it's more anecdotal than anything else? Greg Rafert: Certainly for the registry operator and registrar surveys I would say that it's anecdotal information. It can be informative but you have to kind of look at it through the lens of there being not a large number of responses. For the trademark owner potential registrant and registrant surveys, one thing we don’t have a large enough sample to say that it's statistically valid. But given the higher response rates there, especially for the potential registrants, I say it begins to move away from the world of anecdotes and to be something a little bit more. Paul McGrady: This is Paul McGrady for the record. Just to follow-up on the real Paul's question, which is what is better, what we have here, or no information? Right, is it better to have this, anecdotal information perhaps for the contracted parties, something more than an anecdotal for the rest. Is that a - in terms of decision making, is it better to have this or is it better to have nothing? Greg Rafert: I at least think so. I think it's of course largely up for you all to decide but I would think that it's better than having no information. j) pages 22-23: I call out the issue of whether this report actually identifies "trends", and we also learn the budget for the survey Ariel Liang: ..And then there is a question from George Kirikos for Greg. Greg has a PhD so I trust that he can answer this. Would Greg confirm that trends refer to changes of data over time and this survey was a one-time survey. Thus, isn't it entire incorrect to claim that this survey is an indicator of a trend when there is no way to detect change over time from a single survey? And then he also asked another question. What was the actual budget for this survey? Sorry, this is Ariel Liang from staff. We can probably answer George's second question. The actual budget is $50,000. Greg Rafert: And to your first question, George, yes, I was being a little loose with my language in terms of using the word trends. So I definitely did not mean to imply or suggest that we're looking at changes in perceptions or people's views over time. k) page 25-26: Paul Keating also calls out the issue of members of this PDP filling out the survey Paul Keating: Hi, Paul Keating for the record and I'm not trying to add controversy where none needs to be but I was just thinking about Paul's comment about more information is better than no information. And I remember that yesterday, you didn't have a restriction on at least the council's participation in the survey as prohibiting someone who is in the working group already from participating in in the survey. So I'm wondering how many people in any of those questions participated who were actually working group members. And the only reason is that if we're going to allocate importance in any degree to the survey, want to make sure that we're not double counting people, right, because we have our own opinions during the working group and working group sessions. And I don't want there to be a perceived even concept out there that certain people, whether it's on the domain registrant side or the trademark claimant side were in the survey pumping up the results so that effectively their position during the working group could be sustained to a higher degree of importance. So if you could verify that, if there's any way of verifying it, or just simply asking people -- members of the working group -- whether or not they participated in the survey that would answer the question and eliminate a potential source of conflict and suspicion. Thank you. Greg Rafert: So to verify, we would need them to identify to us that they took the survey and we can also identify the responses as long as they gave us some sense for - assuming they remembered how they answered certain questions. And maybe that latter part is not possible. l) page 31: admission that there's not a representative sample of trademark owners for this survey Ariel Liang: This is Ariel from staff. There is a question from George Kirikos. I'd like to point Greg to Page A2-526. Is that a representative sample of the entire universe of trademark holders given the number of firms who - and with revenues in billions of dollars? And he has a follow-up. Greg Rafert: Yes, I would say it is not a representative sample of trademark owners. ***** November 28, 2018 RPM PDP Working Group meeting ***** https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/2018-11-28+Review+of+all+R… https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/99483940/Questions%20%26%2… m) no statistical confidence intervals, margin of errors! Question (by George Kirikos, page 5): None of the tables include the asserted “margin of error” numbers in the current draft of the final report. Please provide them at a 95% confidence level. [one can use a standard calculator such as https://www.surveymonkey.com/mp/margin-oferror-calculator/ to do this; if it’s too much work to do this for all tables, please advise what your “population” or “universe” number is, and calculate the margin of error for tables: Q1a (page 10), Q6 (page 12), Q6a (page 12), Q6a.i (page 13), Q8 (page 15), Q9 (page 21), Q4a (page 32), Q21 (page 38), Q21a.i. (page 39), Q5 (page 43) Q2 (page 47), and Q13b (page 53). Answer (from the Analysis Group): "Due to the opt-in nature of the surveys and issues that arise in defining the proper population for some of the respondent groups, we do not feel it would be proper to provide confidence intervals or margins of error for these results." n) from November 28, 2018 call transcript, page 6, no anti-fraud measures! https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/transcrip… George Kirikos: ...So I was wondering whether the list of questions and answers that we saw was complete. Or whether there are also these anti-fraud questions that were inter-mingled in the survey. To try to deter that kind of abuse. " Answer (transcript says "Greg Shatan", but should be "Greg Rafert" obviously): "Yes, this is Greg. There were no anti-fraud questions in the survey since we were just trying to keep it to be as short as possible. I don't think we will saw much evidence of people randomly answering questions in the survey. Generally, the ways in which people answered questions were pretty consistent. And I think, you know, we can certainly look into this two that received cease and desist letters. It's possible that we were mistaken in stating that. But if they did we can certainly look if there are any kind of other fishy responses by those two individuals. Thanks." (Key part of the above: No anti-fraud questions! Rebecca Tushnet obviously identified (previous to that part of the transcript) that folks from the panel were simply providing random answers that don't correspond to observable real world event proportions (i.e. lawsuits, UDRPs, etc.), in order to earn their 75 cent payouts as quickly as possible) In conclusion, there were serious issues with this survey, and it'd be difficult to attach any weight at all to the results. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/

2 1

Agenda & Materials: RPM Sunrise Sub Team Meeting 12 Dec 1800 UTC
by Julie Hedlund Dec. 11, 2018

Dec. 11, 2018

Dear RPM Sunrise Sub Team members, Per the Doodle poll, invites have been sent for the first recurring weekly meeting on Wednesday, 12 December at 1800 UTC for 60 minutes. Please see below the draft agenda and materials for tomorrow’s meeting. Best, Mary, Ariel, Berry, and Julie Draft Agenda: 1. Review agenda/Statements of Interest 2. Select Sub Team Leader 3. Introduction to the survey analysis tool: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1aBw-dW2gBzvBfhUgl3u6ShWlPZt0yyNF-Vs… 4. Begin survey analysis 5. AOB

1 0