August 2017 - GNSO-RPM-WG - lists.icann.org

Directly from INTA's website: What the TTAB has to say about sample size
by George Kirikos Sept. 6, 2017

Sept. 6, 2017

Hi folks, Before I went to bed, I made a note to myself to do a quick search to see what TM practitioners would do in their TTAB statistical studies. This morning, one of the first hits I found came from INTA's own website, see below. In particular, note the statements (from footnote 147): (a) "characterizing 62 interviews as “anecdotal evidence” that did not lend themselves to statistical conclusions" (b) "finding 57 respondents raised a question “as to the overall validity of the survey results" The INTA survey sample size of 33 is far below even those two examples, and was closest to the next example: (c) "finding a survey of 25 pharmacists and doctors to be an insufficient sampling" (start of excerpt, sorry for the formatting, footnotes are #144 to #147; easier to read the PDF I link to) The Trademark Reporter (The Law Journal of the International Trademark Association), September-October, 2014. https://www.inta.org/TMR/Documents/Volume%20104/vol104_no5_a5.pdf C. Representative Samples (page number 1172) Probability and nonprobability methods may be used to select the sample from the universe of possible respondents. However, if the sample of respondents is not representative of the universe from which it was selected, it will be accorded little weight.144 The number of respondents sampled must be large enough for the results to be reliable. The overall sample size for a survey will depend on the number of disputed marks tested and whether the survey includes any control groups. Surveys in Board proceedings often interview between 100 and 300 respondents about each mark or stimulus examined.145 In some instances, the Board has considered survey samples with fewer than 200 respondents to be small,146 and samples with fewer than 100 respondents routinely have been disfavored.147 And here are the footnotes: 144. iMedica Corp. v. Medica Health Plans, 2007 WL 1697344, at *5 (T.T.A.B. June 7, 2007) (“We also find that the survey results are questionable because the survey did not fairly sample the universe of possible respondents and is biased in MHP’s favor.”) and Am. Home Prods. Corp. v. B.F. Ascher & Co., Inc., 166 U.S.P.Q. 61 (T.T.A.B. 1970) (“[T]he persons to be interviewed were not chosen on the basis of a sampling technique but solely because they were known to opposer . . .”), aff’d, 473 F.2d 903 (C.C.P.A. 1973). 145. Facebook, Inc. v. Think Computer Corp., 2013 WL 4397052, at *14 (T.T.A.B. July 23, 2013) (“Dr. Ford supervised . . . interviews: 270 in the test cell and 272 in the control cell.”); PepsiCo, Inc. v. Pirincci, 2012 WL 2930650, at *7 (T.T.A.B. June 25, 2012) (“In total, 404 consumers participated in the survey . . . with 200 consumers participating in one of two ‘test cells’ and 204 consumers in one of two ‘control cells . . .’”); Sara Lee Corp. v. Mahmoud, 2007 WL 4663353, at *5 (T.T.A.B. Dec. 27, 2007) (“[S]urvey respondents in the test group (199 women age 18 and older from around the country) were shown a stimulus card . . .”); AVA Enters. Trading Co., Inc. v. Audio Boss USA, Inc., 77 U.S.P.Q.2d 1783, 1786 (T.T.A.B. 2006) (“A test group of 100 respondents [was] shown a card. . . . A control group of 100 respondents [was] shown a card . . .”). Note, the test group may include more respondents than the control group. See Anheuser-Busch, Inc. v. Mambo Seafood #1, Inc., 2008 WL 4674603, at *7 (T.T.A.B. Sept. 22, 2008) (“The survey was taken of 296 individuals, 200 of whom were exposed to applicant’s mark with the remaining 96 persons comprising a control group that was exposed to the fictitious mark . . .”). 146. 7-Eleven, Inc. v. Morrison, 2008 WL 2385970, at *13 (T.T.A.B. June 2, 2008) (finding 162 survey respondents to be “small,” but according opposer’s survey some weight); Kohler Co. v. Kohler Homes, 2008 WL 4877069, at *9 (T.T.A.B. Nov. 4, 2008) (“[T]he number of actual respondents to the KOHLER HOMES and KOHLER ASSOCIATES ARCHITECTS surveys is small, i.e., 164 and 163, respectively.”). 147. Clear Choice Holdings LLC v. Implant Direct Int’l, 2013 WL 5402082, at *8 (T.T.A.B. Aug. 26, 2013) (finding 90 respondents for each mark tested to be “a small number”); Bridgestone/Firestone N. Am. Tire, LLC v. Silverstone Berhad, 2003 WL 1559659, at *4 (T.T.A.B. Mar. 2003) (characterizing 62 interviews as “anecdotal evidence” that did not lend themselves to statistical conclusions); iMedica Corp. v. Medica Health Plans, 2007 WL 1697344, at *4-*5 (T.T.A.B. June 7, 2007) (finding 57 respondents raised a question “as to the overall validity of the survey results”); Am. Home Prods. Corp. v. B.F. Ascher & Co., Inc., 166 U.S.P.Q. 61, 62 (T.T.A.B. 1970) (finding a survey of 25 pharmacists and doctors to be an insufficient sampling), aff’d, 473 F.2d 903 (C.C.P.A. 1973); Guardian Life Ins. Co. v. England, 2002 WL 31173415, at *3 (T.T.A.B. Sept. 2002) (finding it inappropriate to draw conclusions based on a survey with only three respondents). (end of excerpt) Of course, the above focused on sample size, but let's not forget the other part, about the non-representative nature of sample. Re-read the part above that said: "However, if the sample of respondents is not representative of the universe from which it was selected, it will be accorded little weight" That's exactly the second problem experienced with this INTA survey, as previously discussed. Q.E.D. Have a nice day. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/

9 18

Critique of INTA survey
by George Kirikos Aug. 31, 2017

Aug. 31, 2017

Hi folks, I'm not sure how many have had a chance to read the INTA materials for tomorrow's call yet, or have any background in statistics, but the survey has truly deep and fatal flaws, making any conclusions drawn from it entirely unreliable and non-robust. I could write 50 pages on this (I've read the report three times now, in horror), but I'll keep it relatively brief (and make these statements in advance of the call, so that Lori or INTA/Nielsen have a chance to rebut). The entire basis of statistical inference is that one can make statements about an entire population with a certain level of confidence using only data from a subset of that population (i.e. the sample in question). Prerequisites are that (a) the sample be random, and (b) the sample be of sufficient size. INTA's study fails on both counts (self-selected and unrepresentative sample, and a mere 33 responses). INTA claims to represent 7,000 organizations as members: https://www.inta.org/About/Pages/Overview.aspx While they acknowledge on page 5 of the slides the small sample size and suggest "some caution", alarm bells should be ringing regarding that small sample size. Page 6 then demonstrates how unrepresentative and non-random that sample is, with 52% of the 33 respondents having total revenue exceeding $5 billion/year, and a whopping 77% (27%+52%) having revenues exceeding $1 billion. This is hardly representative of typical TM owners. Similarly, 39% of this sample had 25,000 or more employees, and 78% (39%+39%) had 5,000 or more employees. All throughout the report, the slides say "INTA members" (i.e. wrongly attempting to extrapolate and assert a truth about the entire population, rather than limiting the statements to be applicable only to the sample of 33 respondents). Basic sanity checks were not done with those extrapolations/inferences. On page 25, the report asserts that "more than 4 in 10 members have applied to operate a new TLD"? 45% of 7000 members implies 3,150 INTA members applied for new gTLDs. That's not correct. The total applications by everyone was 1930 -- see https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/program-status/statistics, and the number by brand owners is a subset of that total (664 according to https://icannwiki.org/Brand_TLD and that will be a bit high, due to multiple applications). If one extrapolated that to the entire universe of trademark holders (i.e. including non-INTA members), millions of TM owners, it would be even more obvious how unrepresentative and non-random the data in this sample is relative to a "typical" TM holder. This sample is highly skewed to the largest of the large organizations who happened to self-select a response to this survey. All throughout the report, important data on confidence intervals is missing, obscuring the fact that the level of confidence is extremely low (and the margin of error is high) due to the small sample size. [confidence intervals are statements like "+/- 5%, 19 times out of 20] There are actually calculators that let one know how big a sample should be, in order to have a certain level of confidence and/or a margin of error. e.g. see: https://www.surveymonkey.com/mp/sample-size-calculator/ For a population size of 7000 members (INTA's total membership) and a 95% confidence level, with a huge 10% margin of error, you'd still need 95 survey responses. Yet, there were only 33 responses. This is particularly important to be kept in mind for charts with percentages (pp. 17 and beyond), where the margin of error, even if sampled properly, would be enormous. Furthermore, those would have had to have been RANDOMLY sampled responses to be proper, which we know isn't the case. If you wanted smaller margins of error, say +/- 5%, you need an even larger sample size (in this case, 365). Another useful calculator is at: https://www.surveymonkey.com/mp/margin-of-error-calculator/ ICANN has done surveys, by Nielsen even, that didn't suffer from these deficiencies, e.g. see: https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/reviews/cct/registrant-survey-faqs-25sep15-en A key takeaway from that work was "Due to a low response rate to emailed invitations to complete the survey, ICANN then worked with Domain Tools to procure a larger sample of WHOIS records." They took greater care in that study to have *randomized* samples, too, along with the larger sample size. While it is somewhat interesting to have a glimpse into brand protection of some of the largest companies, ultimately this study is not robust. In summary, any conclusions from this INTA study really need to be taken with a grain of salt, due to the small sample size, combined with the non-random and unrepresentative sample itself. Indeed, many of the conclusions need to be read as the *opposite* of what the study suggests (i.e. if defensive costs are $150K/year for companies with $5 billion+ in revenues, that's a drop in the bucket, and would be much, much smaller for a "typical" TM owner). To correct these deficiencies, future surveys need to be random (easily done, e.g. random sample the USPTO database or other national registries) and have a much larger sample size. Understandably, that costs money, but that's what it takes to do things properly. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 4:02 PM, Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org> wrote: > Dear all, > > > > The proposed agenda for our next Working Group call, scheduled for 0300 UTC > on Thursday 31 August, is as follows: > > > > Roll call (via Adobe Connect and phone bridge only); updates to Statements > of Interest > Review and discuss results of INTA Cost Impact Survey > Next steps/next meeting > > > > For Agenda Item #2, please review the survey results here: > https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/61606864/INTA%20Cost%20Imp… > > > > Lori Schulman of INTA, and a member of this Working Group, also did a > presentation of the results to the Competition, Consumer Protection & > Consumer Trust (CCT) Review Team recently that may be helpful to review: > https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/61606864/ICANN%20New%20gTL…. > We are hopeful that Lori will be able to join us for this call, to > facilitate our review and discussion. > > > > Thanks and cheers > > Mary > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > gnso-rpm-wg mailing list > gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg

12 27

Recordings, Attendance, AC Chat for Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) PDP Working Group call on Thursday, 31 August 2017 03:00 UTC
by Nathalie Peregrine Aug. 31, 2017

Aug. 31, 2017

Dear All, Please find the attendance of the call attached to this email. The MP3, Adobe Connect recording and Adobe Connect chat below for the Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) PDP Working Group call held Thursday, 31 August 2017at 03:00 UTC. Attendance of the call is posted on agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/GhghB MP3: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-rpm-review-31aug17-en.mp3 Adobe Connect recording: https://participate.icann.org/p259wa70n1j/ The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page:http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar[gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_group…> ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/ Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/GhghB Thank you. Kind regards, Michelle Adobe Connect chat transcript for 31 August 2017: Michelle DeSmyter:Dear All, Welcome to the Review of All Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in all gTLDs PDP WG call on Thursday, 31 August 2017 at 03:00 UTC. Michelle DeSmyter:Agenda wiki page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_… Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):Hello All Jonathan Frost (.CLUB):Hi Maxim Louise Marie Hurel:Hi everyone Jonathan Agmon:hello Kathy Kleiman:I've been on told for awhile for the conference bridge. Anyone else having the same experience? Kathy Kleiman:told -> hold :-) Michelle DeSmyter:Hi there Kathy, let me speak with the operator and find out what is going on Louise Marie Hurel:We can hear you well, Kathy Kathy Kleiman:Great! Kathy Kleiman:Mary, Michelle, let's give it the usual extra minute to two. Kathy Kleiman:Tx to all who have joined us for this call! Schulman:Hi Schulman:There's another interesting sound. Kathy Kleiman:Can that line be muted? George Kirikos:Hi folks. Louise Marie Hurel:haha Mary Wong:Hi all, please remember to MUTE your mic if you are not speaking, thanks! Kathy Kleiman:Hi Lori! Kathy Kleiman:Hi George. George Kirikos:Are any of the participants here from Asia/Pacific? Sara Bockey:I see at least one person from apac George Kirikos:That's good to know, Sara. Michael Flemming:These meeting times are greatly appreciated from us in APAC. Jonathan Agmon:@George I thought you knew everybody ;) Jonathan Agmon:I am in Singapore... Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):I'd recommend to read e-mail from Kurt Pritz about this survey. George Kirikos:Good idea, Maxim. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):79% of surveyed is >1B revenue ... so it is not so relevant to small and mediumbusiness (page 6) George Kirikos:That's not 'randomized' -- that's a self-selected survey. Paul McGrady:@Maxim - do you have a survey to provide that does a better job teasing out data from small and medium businesses? Would love to see it. George Kirikos:Kurt explained the difference. Paul McGrady:@George - do you have any randomized surveys supporting your views? Would love to see them... George Kirikos:@Paul: answered on the mailing list already. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):@Paul, unfortunately not. Our experience (in registrar) that not many companies of this size aware on RPMs at all Kathy Kleiman:CCTRT -> Competition, Consumer Trust and Consumer Choice Review Team Paul McGrady:@George - noted. The answer was no, you have no surveys supporting your various opinions. Jon Nevett:ICANN requested the study -- did it help fund it as well? Mary Wong:@Jon, I don't believe the INTA study was requested by ICANN. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):@Paul, I m meant small and medium Paul McGrady:@Maxim - how could that be? We were all assured that there was a large market for new gTLDs before Round 1 launched... Jon Nevett:Lori just said that ICANN requested it Greg Shatan:George, your confusing the initial sample and the respondents to the sample. Two different concepts. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):@Paul, it depends on who assured you George Kirikos:@Greg: we know it's not representative sample. They even acknowledge the size issue in their report. George Kirikos:What they don't acknowledge is the size of the invalidity. They understate it. Greg Shatan:Those Nielsen people must not know much about surveys. Kiran Malancharuvil:haha Greg. George Kirikos:@Greg: they obviously do know better. I pointed that out in my email. Why don't you acknowledge that 33 responses is very, very bad. Paul McGrady:@Maxim - Ironically, it was the ICANN Economic Survey that was the basis for the community momentum to expand. Kathy Kleiman 2:Slide 6 Philip Corwin:Regardless of any critique of its statistical methodology and didsappointment at the response rate, it may still provide useful anecdotal data. It's certainly better than no data at all. Paul McGrady:@Greg, ha! Greg Shatan:Higher would be better, but I will refrain from using florid overstatements. George Kirikos:@Phil: if it's presented simply as unrepresentative anecdotal data, I have no problems with that at all. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):+1 George George Kirikos:But, re-read Kurt's diplomatic response -- that's not how it was presented. George Kirikos:Consantly referencing "INTA members" (i.e. the entire population), rather than results being only for the 33 participants. Mike Rodenbaugh:INTA has acknowledged that results are an indicator of a trend and not the trend itself, as Lori just said Paul McGrady:@Phil - agree. If our basis to submit ideas and data into this group is statistical perfection, that is going to exlcude a lot of inputs. Kathy Kleiman 2:@All: Lori's words are very clear and useful. She is trying to address the issues you have raised. George Kirikos:@Mike: "indicator of a trend" is a way to massage things, to try to say that it has some validity. That's just not correct. George Kirikos:A bad survey doesn't tell you anything (good or bad). Greg Shatan:Results are always only from the participants, George. Jonathan Agmon:At least there is a report to look at. George Kirikos:@Greg: the reason we do statistics is to make statements about a larger population, based on data from a sampled subset. Mike Rodenbaugh:@George I disagree, at least it is anecdotal evidence Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):@Paul, without knowing the composition of those averages - it goes not give enough info to understand if conclusions are correct Louise Marie Hurel:I disagree, George. I believe it is clear towards how the results can be interpreted Mike Rodenbaugh:showing cost impacts to large mark owners Kiran Malancharuvil:@kathy - agree that lori is doing very well addressing issues. seems like the biggest critics are more interested in the chat room. Paul McGrady:+1 Jonathan. Disheartened to see folks with no surveys to back their opinion attacking this survey, just because it doesn't fit their narrative. Kathy Kleiman 2:Slide 9 George Kirikos:@Paul: Attack my arguments, rather than attack my lack of surveys. George Kirikos:You can't argue against math. Greg Shatan:George, it's not the sample that responds. Responses to any kind of surveys have to deal with non-response bias, response bias, selection bias, self-selection bias, etc. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):The isue is not the survey, it is about re-presentation, having a survey does not mean it is applicable George Kirikos:Statistics principles are pretty well understood. Mike Rodenbaugh:nobody is saying this is a statistically valid survey George Kirikos:@Greg: and size --- did the surrvey even attempt that adjustment? No. Philip Corwin:Interesting that the RPM regarded as most effective is the legacy UDRP and not any of the new RPMs. George Kirikos:Notice slides constantly refer to "INTA members" (sorry, they're not all numbered, e.g. "average total defense costs per members." Mike Rodenbaugh:INTA has 1000+ corporate members, mostly large businesses; the 33 responses are indicative of overall experience of those members George Kirikos:Notice Lori just said "Our members", not "the 33 members that responded". Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):33 out of 1000 is 3.3% Georges Nahitchevansky:George Give it a rest already and let Lori finish her presentation George Kirikos:I'm not interrupting her, Georges. Greg Shatan:You know what she was referring to. There was a lengthy introduction. Greg Shatan:I think George wants to be on Mystery Science Theatre 3000.... Sara Bockey:Agree with Georges. Enough. Let Lori do her persentation. John McElwaine:petty Rebecca L Tushnet:How can it be indicative of overall experience when it's not even a representative group of INTA brand owners? Georges Nahitchevansky:You are interrupting everyone else. You can make your points after she is done Scott Austin:+1GeorgeS Rebecca L Tushnet:I agree that it is useful anecdotal evidence, but it's not about a trend (it's not a time series, among other things) Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:@George, do you contend that the user stories this "survey" (quotes provided for your benefit) are invalid simply because there aren't enough of them? Brian Winterfeldt:It is more data than we have had to date Rebecca - it is a window if you will - granted not a scientifically perfect one. Jonathan Agmon:+1 Georges Kiran Malancharuvil:+1 Georges Paul McGrady:@George, you note that statistics principles are pretty well understood. However, in your earlier email, you indicate you read the survey in horror "(I've read the report three times now,in horror)." What statistical principle does one use to know when to switch from careful reading to reading it in horror? Philip Corwin:Lori, I don't see anything in these slides regarding use of private RPMs such as DPML and whether that affected use of sunrise. Were any questions asked about that? George Kirikos:Folks keep asking me questions, but then say I should wait for Lori to finish. Make up your mind. Greg Shatan:Cute. Paul McGrady:@George, I think it is fine for you to go ahead and answer my question about reading the survey in horror... George Kirikos:@Paul: go read the rest of that email. That was the preface, and then I explained it. Greg Shatan:First you complain about being asked questions and then you don't answer them. Make up your mind. George Kirikos:@Greg: I won't be distracted by repetitive questions. George Kirikos:Go re-read what I wrote, and put it on the mailing list. Greg Shatan:I don't see that question in the chat. David McAuley:Well presented, thank you Lori J. Scott Evans:thank you lori Kiran Malancharuvil:thanks Lori Greg Shatan:I read what you wrote. Once was more than enough. Brian Winterfeldt:Thank you Lori! Sara Bockey:Thanks, Lori Cyntia King:Thnanks, Lori. Brian Winterfeldt:Great summary. Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Thank you Lori. John McElwaine:thanks Lori Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):is the full presentation available? Georges Nahitchevansky:Thank you Lori Paul McGrady:Thanks Lori! Jon Nevett:Thanks Lori! Greg Shatan:Thank you, Lori. Philip Corwin:Thanks very much for the presentation, Lori. Mary Wong:I can put up the study slides if that is hepful. Scott Austin:Thank you Lori Mary Wong:Nielsen slides: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_do… Jonathan Agmon:Thank you Lori! Mary Wong:Let us (staff) know if anyone wants the Nielsen slides up in AC. Louise Marie Hurel:Thanks, Lori! I agree with Rebecca. While the report brings interesting data, the discrepancy between the number of those who actually answered the survey challenges the idea of an actual "indicator of a trend". I believe is a question of "what are the next steps", the follow up Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):@Lori, It would be interesting to see colmposition of numbers from page 10 (of full report) on price of defensive actions J. Scott Evans:George. Quit asking loaded questions. Kiran Malancharuvil:lori addressed this in her presentation Kiran Malancharuvil:perhaps George should have listened George Kirikos:What was loaded? Greg Shatan:Jane, you ignorant.... George Kirikos:Don't put words into my mouth. J. Scott Evans:@george. You basically asked her to admit that all your criticism is valid and that the study is useless. Ask new questions, we have all seen you review and opinion. Greg Shatan:What words were put in your mouth? Cyntia King:I have had numerous conversatoins w/ large brand owners who's data is spread across their organization & is difficult to obtain, nevermind share. George Kirikos:Did I use the word "ignorant"? Rebecca L Tushnet:Greg, leaving out "slut" doesn't make that quote any less inappropriate. Greg Shatan:You clearly implied it. Brian Winterfeldt:Brand owners spent a lot of time and energy to give us this information and I believe it would be foolish to ignore it. Cyntia King:+1 Brian George Kirikos:Implied? I did no such thing. Paul McGrady:+1 Brian Greg Shatan:I'm shocked, shocked that there's gambling in this establishment. Paul McGrady:MIchael Graham Brian Winterfeldt:It's Michael Graham. Cyntia King:We should utilize the info as the best available even if imperfect statistically. Kiran Malancharuvil:+1 Brian Kathy Kleiman 2:@Maxim, the full presentation will be circulated to the full WG Greg Shatan:Agree with Cynthia, these are factually accurate responses at a bare minimum. How to extrapolate them is a reasonable question. Mary Wong:The full set of Nielsen slides, Lori's presentation today and Lori's previous presentation to the CCT-RT are all posted here: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_… David McAuley:Thanks Mary Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):@Cyntia, usually conclusions are quite dependent on the presented info, and having not statistically correct info on the input means you have not correct conclusions George Kirikos:Exactly, Maxim. Louise Marie Hurel:@Lori, do you have a detailed list of countries (rather than regions) that contributed? Schulman:I could ask Cyntia King:@Maxim We're not curing cancer. We're tryng to make recommendations to ICANN about RPMs based on the best data available. Louise Marie Hurel:origin* Greg Shatan:What do you mean by "statistically correct", Maxim? What is incorrect about these results? Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):for example, costs of ICANN compliant costs of 2k USD ... having myself managing all compliants for 2 TLDs and 3 Registrars for few years ... I do not see it relevant Paul McGrady:@Maxim - but people draw conclusions all the time in these calls and on the list with no surveys, flawed or otherwise, backing them up. Are all of their conclusions therefore "not correct"? Or is data perfect only a burden for brand owners alone to carry? Louise Marie Hurel:Thanks, that would be great, @Lori Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):@Greg, the issue is that it lacks composition of averages and not representative Brian Winterfeldt:It actually took a lot of effort to get as many responses as we had given the time required to complete the survey! Greg Shatan:Imperfect though they may be, they are not incorrect. Every survey, even the most rigorous surveys have flaws. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):I think it could be seen as a source of anecdotal data George Kirikos:@Greg: it's the extrapolation to say that the results of the small sample also apply to the larger population that is the issue. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):+1 George George Kirikos:It's a flaw to do so, given the circumstances. Greg Shatan:Maxim, what do you mean by "composition of averages"? George Kirikos:As anecdotes, fine. Weighted accordingly. Georges Nahitchevansky:So all of George K's so called anecdotal information over the past months should be discarded by your logic as in many instances, as others have pointed out, the so called evidence is based on questionable and flawed analysis and speculation Greg Shatan:George, this does not have to be binary, thought you want it to be. It Cyntia King:Biz decisions are often made best on best available data. There is a tradeoff: time/money vs. perfect data that groups like this must make in order to make reasonable & timely decisions. George Kirikos:Georges: I'm not presenting any anecdotes as more than what they are, which Kurt even acknowledged INTA has been doing. Greg Shatan:This is not merely anecdotal. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):@Greg, kit is about 150k USD costs ... Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):*it George Kirikos:At best it is, Greg. Do you really believe these results apply to ALL Trademark holders, worldwide? (non-INTA and INTA combined, the entire population of TM holders) Greg Shatan:You've lost me. Cyntia King:+1 Lori Greg Shatan:Again, you are trying to be binary. That's not what I said, and that's a good example of a loaded question. Mike Rodenbaugh:INTA corporate members are generally large businesses; it is fair to extrapolate the experience of 33 responders across the broader group of 1000 members. Schulman:Agree with Rodenbaugh Michael Flemming:Question: The average total defense costs per company on slide 13 (I think), is that inclusive of individual worker's salaries or only the cost of the defensive action itself? Greg Shatan:I think that's a fair way to look at it, Mike. Rebecca L Tushnet:MIke, that's not even true on the study's own numbers, as far as I can tell--billion dollar companies overresponded Mary Wong:@Michael, do you mean Slide 13 of the nielsen deck or this presentation? Michael Flemming:This one Michael Flemming:Thank you, Lori. Greg Shatan:Rebecca, Mike said extrapolate. He did not get into the methods that would be use to extrapolate. Mike Rodenbaugh:@Rebecca yes those companies have better resources to prepare these responses Philip Corwin:Q-What if anything does this study tell us about efficacy of the new RPMs and whether and how they should be modified? Mike Rodenbaugh:you may have a point as to some of the numbers, i.e. dollars spent; but we can extrapolate many of the 'percentage' numbers quite fairly Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):an average of 79% of companies >1B turnover might mean few companies spending a lot comparing to others Rebecca L Tushnet:Sure, Mike, but that means you can't extrapolate even to INTA brand owners Georges Nahitchevansky:And to the type of business involved Cyntia King:@Phiip orwin That tis the right question Rebecca L Tushnet:At least not without rejiggering the numbers to match the ratios Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):@Mike it would be not fair to extrapolate from that George Kirikos:Exactly, Rebecca. Rebecca L Tushnet:And correspondingly increase the confidence intervals George Kirikos:+1 Rebecca. George Kirikos:If one keeps torturing that data, though, with only 33 responses, essentially you can't say much that is statistically valid, though. Philip Corwin:Thanks Cyntia. I have alwaus found that if you don't ask the right question you will likely not get a useful answer. Mike Rodenbaugh:@Phil that is the core question; imho it at least shows some value to the RPMs -- and we have seen little to no actual evidence of any harm from them George Kirikos:i.e. "50% +/- 50%" will be the result. Georges Nahitchevansky:e.g. a finance company would probably have more fraud and phishing issues than a dog food company. So costs would be higher for the finance company J. Scott Evans:The conclusion of the survey falls in line with the economic surveys ICANN did in the early 2000's and echo the myriad of public comments submitted by brand owenrs throughout the new gTLD process Michael Flemming:Very helpful, Michael. Thank you very much! Brian Winterfeldt:+1 J. Scott Greg Shatan:The issues for different sectors are different, not necessarily less or more. Kiran Malancharuvil:yes j scott. Cyntia King:@J. Scott Evans Verey interesting Greg Shatan:J Scott -- Very good point, and informs how we look at these results. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):it would be hard to build consensus on basis of this report Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:We can't build consensus on this report because it only reflect data about brand owners. It doesn't mean the brand owner stories are wrong. Brian Winterfeldt:+1 Cyntia Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):it gives us anecdotal information George Kirikos:Exactly, Maxim. Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:We will still discuss other stakeholders as well. Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:this study doesn't mean we won't also hear from them. George Kirikos:Some folks just don't appear to understand statistics. Greg Shatan:It gives us more than anecdotal information, as much as you try to stuff it down. George Kirikos:Perhaps ICANN needs to hire people, on staff, for statistics expertise. Mary Wong:If it helps, note that this Working Group is also proposing more surveys - of regisries, registrars, brand owners, registrants - for more anecdotal evidence. Michael R Graham:The results of the survey are what they are. They are, frankly, far more than the information we have from other stakeholders and groups. Paul McGrady:@George - I take exception at your denegrating INTA Staff. Philip Corwin:It would have been very surprising if more than a thousand new gTLDs did not generate some additional costs for TM owners. But, again, the focus of this study was costs, while the focus of our work is efficacy, balance, and potential RPM modifications. George Kirikos:@Mary: it won't be anecdotal data --- if it's random, a large sample, etc. Mary Wong:@George, the proposal is for anecdotal evidence for the most part. Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:I was not part of any discussion group where we decided we were only ever going to look at fully validated surveys with a margin of error of 0.5. we have always said we'd look at whatever data we could get. George Kirikos:@Paul: stop putting words in my mouth. Michael R Graham:Anecdotal evidence has its own value. David McAuley:Thanks Kathy, Lori, and all, good bye Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):bye all Michael R Graham:Thanks all. Jonathan Agmon:Thank you all J. Scott Evans:ciao George Kirikos:Bye folks. Philip Corwin:Bye all. have a great Labor Day! Brian Winterfeldt:By everyone. Thank you Kathy. Louise Marie Hurel:Bye all. Thanks. Kiran Malancharuvil:thanks John McElwaine: bye Scott Austin:Thanks all Greg Shatan:Bye all. Thanks all, esp. Lori. Schulman:It was my pleasure. Really...

1 0

Member questions (Re: Critique of INTA survey)
by Mary Wong Aug. 31, 2017

Aug. 31, 2017

Dear Paul and everyone, To assist Lori and the Working Group chairs, staff intends to compile all the questions that are sent to this list so that, if they are not addressed on the call later, Lori will be able to review them following the call. This may be especially helpful if you raise a question about a particular data point or a slide from the Nielsen deck that we are not able to cover on the call. It will be helpful therefore if, like Paul, any questions you have about a specific result can also include a reference to the slide number. Please note also that both the Nielsen slides (which contain all the results) and the more succinct presentation of the results that Lori made to the CCT Review Team have been posted to the Working Group wiki space here: https://community.icann.org/x/GhghB. I believe that, for purposes of allowing for greater Working Group discussion during our call, Lori will be using the same presentation slides as those that were used for the CCT Review Team presentation. Thanks and cheers Mary From: <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Paul Tattersfield <gpmgroup(a)gmail.com> Date: Wednesday, August 30, 2017 at 18:15 To: George Kirikos <icann(a)leap.com> Cc: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Critique of INTA survey Hi George & Lori, I think the survey may be useful as long as we recognise those filling out the survey are mostly from the largest members of the INTA. I think NTIA dill well getting such substantive replies from these participants. Theses replies may be helpful as the benefits and problems they have with new gTLDs aree likely to be very different from medium sized and smaller enterprises. It may be when considering just the largest members the statistical signifance of the survey changes? With this in mind I think it would be helpful if an extra column could be added to each of the tables on page 6. And in that column show the Total NTIA members percentages i.e. the percentages of the 6,600 next to the each of the %ages from the 33 that replied. I will not be on the call this evening as it will be 4.00am local time here in Europe, but I would be grateful Lori if you have time to talk on slide 22 as I can review the transcript. On slide 22 can you explain a bit more about the differences between the two columns and why the second column isn't simply the reverse of column 1? Best regards, Paul. On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 9:02 PM, George Kirikos <icann(a)leap.com<mailto:icann@leap.com>> wrote: Hi Lori, [It's "George", by the way. There's another person named "Georges" on this list] I already submitted my comments, nearly 24 hours ago, and already gave ample notice. The 2nd paragraph of my email even said: "and make these statements in advance of the call, so that Lori or INTA/Nielsen have a chance to rebut" The questions I ask will flow from that analysis, today's followup, and also Kurt's email (since he won't be there to ask them himself). There are no surprises here. No one's trying to ambush you. Here's the very first question I will ask: "In order to draw valid conclusions from a survey, the sample must be both randomly selected, and the sample size be of sufficient size. Isn't it correct that the INTA survey is (a) a self-selected, non-random and unrepresentative sample, and (b) far too small, in order to make any statistically reliable conclusions about the larger population it purports to represent?" Any answer but "Yes, you're correct George" will be difficult to defend. The emails (from both myself and Kurt) give clear examples demonstrating how unrepresentative it is, and even links to relevant calculators for determining how large a sample size needs to be for various error margins, etc. After that, assuming you answer "Yes", a natural followup would be "Do you withdraw the study?" The best answer to that would be "Yes". Note, that the invitation (very politely offered -- to save everyone time) was given to withdraw it 8 hours before the conference call. It's now 7 hours before the conference call. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269<tel:416-588-0269> http://www.leap.com/[leap.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.leap.com_&d=DwMFaQ&…> On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 3:45 PM, Lori Schulman <lschulman(a)inta.org<mailto:lschulman@inta.org>> wrote: > Georges, > > > > 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. > > > > Lori > > > > Lori S. Schulman > > Senior Director, Internet Policy > > International Trademark Association (INTA) > > +1-202-704-0408<tel:%2B1-202-704-0408>, Skype: lsschulman > > > > From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org>] > On Behalf Of George Kirikos > Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2017 3:29 PM > > > To: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>> > Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Critique of INTA survey > > > > Lori, > > It is false to say the my comments have any bias or hostility. They > are sound arguments. I was open to it being a scientifically valid > survey, but then I read it, multiple times. So did Kurt (maybe not > multiple times for him!?!?), who I have no affiliation with. > > I don't know whether the working group chairs were aware of the > study's deep flaws before they made the invitation to present it, or > had even read it, but now they do. If they want to keep the schedule, > I'll be there to ask the tough questions tonight, and let the PDP > members that want to try to defend it do so. > > Sincerely, > > George Kirikos > 416-588-0269<tel:416-588-0269> > http://www.leap.com/[leap.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.leap.com_&d=DwMFaQ&…> > > > On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 3:22 PM, Lori Schulman <lschulman(a)inta.org<mailto:lschulman@inta.org>> wrote: >> Dear All, >> >> >> >> This working group chairs requested that I present INTA’s survey results >> and >> that I what I intend to do. I am here to present existing data. It is up >> to the group to decide if there is any value here. George comments show >> immediate bias and hostility toward the work before we have even started a >> discussion. I have stated all along that the study was intended for >> another >> purpose and that we had challenges with conducting it. If the PDP WG >> wishes to exclude the findings that is for the group to decide. Everything >> we do is a learning. George, if you feel that this evening’s call will >> have little or no value to your participation, you have the option of not >> dialing in and listening to the recording at your convenience. >> >> >> >> Lori >> >> >> >> Lori S. Schulman >> >> Senior Director, Internet Policy >> >> International Trademark Association (INTA) >> >> +1-202-704-0408<tel:%2B1-202-704-0408>, Skype: lsschulman >> >> >> >> From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org>] >> On Behalf Of George Kirikos >> Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2017 3:05 PM >> To: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>> >> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Critique of INTA survey >> >> >> >> P.S. There are roughly 8 hours to go until our scheduled call. I would >> invite Lori and/or INTA to simply withdraw the paper from this PDP >> (and the other ICANN group to which it was presented), since >> ultimately it is not a scientifically valid study. Any conclusions >> from it are indefensible. >> >> It would bring more credibility to INTA to withdraw it, in my opinion, >> recognizing it as deeply flawed now, rather than to attempt to defend >> it for 90 minutes tonight, and ultimately see it abandoned/ignored by >> the PDP. As a group, we're always seeking efficiencies --- withdrawing >> this paper and giving everyone back their Wednesday night appears to >> me to be "low hanging fruit" in that regard. >> >> The sooner it's withdrawn, the more time folks will have to make >> arrangements to enjoy their Wednesday evening. >> >> Sincerely, >> >> George Kirikos >> 416-588-0269<tel:416-588-0269> >> http://www.leap.com/[leap.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.leap.com_&d=DwMFaQ&…> >> >> >> On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 2:13 PM, George Kirikos <icann(a)leap.com<mailto:icann@leap.com>> wrote: >>> Hi Kurt, >>> >>> Thanks for mostly agreeing with my analysis. However: >>> >>> On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 1:47 PM, Kurt Pritz <kurt(a)kjpritz.com<mailto:kurt@kjpritz.com>> wrote: >>>> There was one conclusion I could draw. It states that UDRP and Sunrise >>>> were >>>> the favored rights protection mechanisms, used to a major or moderate >>>> extent >>>> by 67% and 64% of the respondents respectively. The next most utilized >>>> RPMs >>>> were Trademark Claims and URS (by 36% and 27% respectively). To me this >>>> says >>>> that, to those who are in-the-know, Sunrise is a highly-valued RPM and, >>>> therefore, should be continued. (Sorry, George) (see slides 15 and 51) >>> >>> The first part of your conclusion is correct (obviously anyone who >>> personally benefits from "front of the line" privileges is going to >>> value it), but the second part (therefore, that it should be >>> continued) is NOT correct. As a PDP, our job is to weigh the benefits >>> against the costs of policy choices amongst ALL stakeholders, not just >>> ones receiving benefits. >>> >>> Thus, if that was "the one conclusion (you) could draw", and it's now >>> debunked, then we're left with the truth, that no conclusions can be >>> drawn from it --- it's for entertainment value only, i.e. it's an >>> advocacy piece, marketing fluff, not a scientifically-valid survey >>> that would endure any serious peer review from those in the field of >>> statistics. >>> >>> To be clear, I tried to keep yesterday's email as short as possible >>> (remember, it was a response to a very long document), and didn't >>> point out every flaw with the survey. To point out another, note that >>> on page 6 it notes that 67% of responses were from USA and Canada. >>> However, INTA's own website states that: >>> >>> https://www.inta.org/Membership/Pages/Membership.aspx[inta.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.inta.org_Membershi…> >>> >>> "63% of our member organizations are outside of North America." >>> >>> This further reinforces my point that it was an unrepresentative >>> sample. As we know from election polling, the survey companies make >>> adjustments in weighting to attempt to compensate for the >>> unrepresentative samples (e.g. if too many men were sampled relative >>> to the known proportion, they'd lower the weights accordingly, etc.). >>> No attempts were made to do this (nor could they credibly have done >>> so, given the small sample size, and lack of randomness). >>> >>> This is a classic case of "If you torture the data long enough, it >>> will confess to anything." >>> >>> Sincerely, >>> >>> George Kirikos >>> 416-588-0269<tel:416-588-0269> >>> http://www.leap.com/[leap.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.leap.com_&d=DwMFaQ&…> >> _______________________________________________ >> gnso-rpm-wg mailing list >> gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg >> > _______________________________________________ > gnso-rpm-wg mailing list > gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg > _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg

3 2

Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] FOR REVIEW: suggested industry blogs for gathering information; ICANN60 schedule
by Winterfeldt, Brian J. Aug. 30, 2017

Aug. 30, 2017

Dear Mary: I would suggest an unbiased emphasis on “blogs and news sites that can be searched for coverage of issues relating to Sunrise and Premium Pricing, and the use of Premium Names and Reserved Names lists,” regardless of whether they are from the domain, trademark or other industry. For a start, I would recommend the following to be excellent resources in this regard. http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/blog/ http://www.managingip.com/Search-Results.html#?term=icann Thank you, Brian Brian J. Winterfeldt Co-Head of Global Brand Management and Internet Practice Mayer Brown LLP bwinterfeldt(a)mayerbrown.com<mailto:bwinterfeldt@mayerbrown.com> From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mary Wong Sent: Tuesday, August 29, 2017 11:32 AM To: gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] FOR REVIEW: suggested industry blogs for gathering information; ICANN60 schedule Dear all, This email is to follow up on (1) an outstanding Action Item for staff from the Working Group meeting on 16 August 2017; and (2) the scheduling of our sessions at ICANN60 in Abu Dhabi. On (1): Staff was requested to prepare and circulate a list, for members’ comments, of suggested domain name industry blogs and news sites that can be searched for coverage of issues relating to Sunrise and Premium Pricing, and the use of Premium Names and Reserved Names lists. We believe the following are the main industry sources (in alphabetical order): * Circle ID: http://www.circleid.com/<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.circlei…> * Domain Incite: http://domainincite.com/<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fdomainincit…> * Domain Pulse: http://www.domainpulse.com/<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.domainp…> * Domain Name Journal: http://www.dnjournal.com/<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dnjourn…> * Domain Name Wire: http://domainnamewire.com/<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fdomainnamew…> * Internet News: https://www.internetnews.me/<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.intern…> * The Domains: https://www.thedomains.com/<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.thedom…> Please let us know if you have concerns or comments on the list. In addition, it was suggested that Working Group should consider whether to also add a list of blogs that cover domain issues of concerns to brand owners (one example that comes to mind is Trademarks and Brands Online: http://www.trademarksandbrandsonline.com/)<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.tradema…>. Please comment if you have thoughts on this additional suggestion. On (2): Please find attached the most recent draft GNSO community schedule for the ICANN60 Public Meeting in Abu Dhabi, scheduled from 28 October – 3 November. In accordance with the session requests that staff put in following consultations with our co-chairs, this Working Group has been allotted a total of six hours of meeting time, divided as follows: * Saturday 28 October: two 90-minute sessions starting at 15.15 local time * Monday 30 October: a third 90-minute session starting at 15.15 local time * Thursday 2 November: a fourth, and final, 90-minute session starting at 13.30 local time Please note that, as with all ICANN Public Meetings, finding slots with minimal conflicts for as many participants as possible is not easy. Staff has worked closely with the GNSO Council leadership to try to ensure that there are no conflicts with major GNSO working sessions and the other PDP Working Groups, while minimizing conflicts with broader cross-community sessions that may be of interest to the GNSO community. This meeting will also be ICANN’s Annual General Meeting, and in accordance with the community-developed meeting strategy there will be two Public Forums, a whole day dedicated to community groups (generally called “Constituency Day”) and much of a day dedicated to discussing the work of the various GNSO policy groups (i.e. the GNSO Working Sessions on Sunday 29 October). Please let us know if you have questions about the schedule. This is a draft schedule that is still subject to change, but we are hopeful that the four RPM sessions are more or less firm. As always, remote participation (e.g. Adobe Connect, phone bridge, transcriptions and recordings) will be available for those who will not be attending the meetings in person. Thanks and cheers Mary __________________________________________________________________________ This email and any files transmitted with it are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail.

1 0

FOR REVIEW: suggested industry blogs for gathering information; ICANN60 schedule
by Mary Wong Aug. 29, 2017

Aug. 29, 2017

Dear all, This email is to follow up on (1) an outstanding Action Item for staff from the Working Group meeting on 16 August 2017; and (2) the scheduling of our sessions at ICANN60 in Abu Dhabi. On (1): Staff was requested to prepare and circulate a list, for members’ comments, of suggested domain name industry blogs and news sites that can be searched for coverage of issues relating to Sunrise and Premium Pricing, and the use of Premium Names and Reserved Names lists. We believe the following are the main industry sources (in alphabetical order): * Circle ID: http://www.circleid.com/ * Domain Incite: http://domainincite.com/ * Domain Pulse: http://www.domainpulse.com/ * Domain Name Journal: http://www.dnjournal.com/ * Domain Name Wire: http://domainnamewire.com/ * Internet News: https://www.internetnews.me/ * The Domains: https://www.thedomains.com/ Please let us know if you have concerns or comments on the list. In addition, it was suggested that Working Group should consider whether to also add a list of blogs that cover domain issues of concerns to brand owners (one example that comes to mind is Trademarks and Brands Online: http://www.trademarksandbrandsonline.com/) Please comment if you have thoughts on this additional suggestion. On (2): Please find attached the most recent draft GNSO community schedule for the ICANN60 Public Meeting in Abu Dhabi, scheduled from 28 October – 3 November. In accordance with the session requests that staff put in following consultations with our co-chairs, this Working Group has been allotted a total of six hours of meeting time, divided as follows: * Saturday 28 October: two 90-minute sessions starting at 15.15 local time * Monday 30 October: a third 90-minute session starting at 15.15 local time * Thursday 2 November: a fourth, and final, 90-minute session starting at 13.30 local time Please note that, as with all ICANN Public Meetings, finding slots with minimal conflicts for as many participants as possible is not easy. Staff has worked closely with the GNSO Council leadership to try to ensure that there are no conflicts with major GNSO working sessions and the other PDP Working Groups, while minimizing conflicts with broader cross-community sessions that may be of interest to the GNSO community. This meeting will also be ICANN’s Annual General Meeting, and in accordance with the community-developed meeting strategy there will be two Public Forums, a whole day dedicated to community groups (generally called “Constituency Day”) and much of a day dedicated to discussing the work of the various GNSO policy groups (i.e. the GNSO Working Sessions on Sunday 29 October). Please let us know if you have questions about the schedule. This is a draft schedule that is still subject to change, but we are hopeful that the four RPM sessions are more or less firm. As always, remote participation (e.g. Adobe Connect, phone bridge, transcriptions and recordings) will be available for those who will not be attending the meetings in person. Thanks and cheers Mary

5 6

Message from co-chairs regarding email list management
by Mary Wong Aug. 28, 2017

Aug. 28, 2017

MESSAGE SENT ON BEHALF OF THE RPM WORKING GROUP CO-CHAIRS Dear Working Group members, Several members have expressed concerns to us, as the Working Group co-chairs, about the recent volume of messages on this mailing list as well as the tone of some of the email exchanges. We appreciate that everyone in this Working Group is devoting a significant amount of their time and energy to our work, and ask that you bear in mind the need to respect the fact that there are likely to be differing viewpoints on a number of the issues at hand. We also acknowledge that emails may be more easily misinterpreted than face-to-face interaction, and that not all participants will have the day to day experience that others may possess. We therefore ask that everyone continue to treat one another with civility, respect, and patience as we work through the many topics before us in a collective attempt to find common ground. Finally, while we encourage active participation by everyone on this mailing list as this facilitates the efficacy of our work, we wish to remind everyone of the importance of keeping the discussions focused on the specific issues that we as a Working Group have been charged by the GNSO Council to review. Messages that are concise, precise and address a specific substantive topic with additional facts and analysis are more likely to help advance our understanding of the topic and our ability to reach consensus than those that merely repeat previous points or that include off-topic comments. Shorter and less personalized messages may well be found to be more appropriate and persuasive by other Working Group members. We thank you all for your time and for all your thoughtful contributions and active participation. Sincerely, Kathy, Phil and J. Scott

1 0

Agenda and materials for next RPM Working Group call
by Mary Wong Aug. 28, 2017

Aug. 28, 2017

Dear all, The proposed agenda for our next Working Group call, scheduled for 0300 UTC on Thursday 31 August, is as follows: 1. Roll call (via Adobe Connect and phone bridge only); updates to Statements of Interest 2. Review and discuss results of INTA Cost Impact Survey 3. Next steps/next meeting For Agenda Item #2, please review the survey results here: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/61606864/INTA%20Cost%20Imp… Lori Schulman of INTA, and a member of this Working Group, also did a presentation of the results to the Competition, Consumer Protection & Consumer Trust (CCT) Review Team recently that may be helpful to review: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/61606864/ICANN%20New%20gTL…. We are hopeful that Lori will be able to join us for this call, to facilitate our review and discussion. Thanks and cheers Mary

1 0

Action Items from the GNSO Review of all RPMs in all gTLDs PDP WG Call - 23 August 2017
by Amr Elsadr Aug. 25, 2017

Aug. 25, 2017

Dear Working Group Members, Below are the action items from this week’s WG call. The action items, notes, meeting documents, recordings and transcripts have all been posted on the meeting’s wiki page here: https://community.icann.org/x/zRchB Changes to the draft proposal on data collection for TM Claims resulting from this week’s discussion have been completed. A revised draft proposal, dated 24 August, is attached to this email. Additionally, a request was made during this week’s WG call to recirculate the link to the results of the INTA Cost Impact Study. The results, as well as the slides presented by WG member Lori Schulman to the CCT-RT can be found on the WG wiki here (under the Metrics, Reviews & External Reports section): https://community.icann.org/x/0AusAw Thanks. Amr Action Items: 1. Staff to move the comment relating to Suggested Source #1 for Question 3 (presenting the Claims Notice to potential registrants in different regions) from column 3 to column 1, noting that this was a suggestion made by the Trademark Claims Sub Team 2. Staff to move the comment relating to Suggested Source #2 for Question 3 (translations of the survey for registrants from jurisdictions where the primary language is not English) from column 3 to column 1, noting that this was a suggestion made by the Trademark Claims Sub Team 3. Staff to revise numbering of the suggested data sources for Question 4 to reflect more accurately the actual numbering of the various sub-questions 4. Staff to recirculate the links to the INTA cost impact survey to the WG mailing list

1 0

UPDATED Recordings, attendance & AC Chat from Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) PDP Working Group call on Wednesday, 23 August 2017 17:00 UTC
by Michelle DeSmyter Aug. 24, 2017

Aug. 24, 2017

Dear All, Please find the attendance of the call attached to this email. The MP3, Adobe Connect recording and Adobe Connect chat below for the Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) PDP Working Group call held Wednesday, 23 August 2017at 17:00 UTC. Attendance of the call is posted on agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/zRchB MP3:http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-rpm-review-23aug17-en.mp3 Adobe Connect recording: https://participate.icann.org/p154a45jfv2/ The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page:http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar[gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_group…> ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/ Wiki page:https://community.icann.org/x/zRchB Thank you. Kind regards, Michelle Adobe Connect chat transcript for 23 August 2017: Michelle DeSmyter:Dear All, Welcome to the Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in all gTLDs PDP Working Group meeting on Wednesday, 23 August 2017 at 17:00 UTC. Michelle DeSmyter:Agenda wiki page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_… George Kirikos:Hi folks. Michelle DeSmyter:HI there George! Paul Tattersfield:Hi George, everyone George Kirikos:Hi Michelle. How are you? George Kirikos:Hey Paul. How's it going? Paul Tattersfield:Good, just been doing a lot of reading for the IGO/INGO WG, how's things with you? George Kirikos:I'm doing alright. I plan to do that same reading later today. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):Hello All George Kirikos:Welcome, Maxim. Philip Corwin:We'll start in 2-3 minutes as people are still logging in. George Kirikos:Perhaps blast out an email reminder? Paul Tattersfield:Perhaps the longer meetings make people arrive later then again perhaps it's because it summer Philip Corwin:1 minute warning Philip Corwin:DC is fairly empty this week. Think lots of folks are on holiday Steve Levy:Hi all Michael R. Graham:Waiting on phone to pass in. claudio:greetings! Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):there were periods of TMCH downtime Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):TMCH - 5k USD per TLD + 0.25 USD per claim registrations Michael R. Graham:@Phil -- Correct limitation on this particular question. Michael R. Graham:@George -- the questions are based on obtaining information in order to answer the Charter questions, so are limited. George Kirikos:Higher customer service costs would be an "unintended consequence", though, for registrars. George Kirikos:So, it's a "cost" that can be measured. George Kirikos:@Michael: yes, but Q1b is non-exhaustive as to what those unintended consquences might be, but then the questions we do ask in the survey are overly limited. Michael R. Graham:@George -- Limited, but necessarily. Paul Tattersfield:it doesn't just have to be cybersquatting it could also be legitimate use in a none competting field Louise Marie Hurel 2:I have poor conection, so maybe I missed a point here. Are we recurring to professional assistance? Bradley Silver:Apologies for joining late Mary Wong:@Louise Marie, we've noted in the document where professional assistance may be needed, and I think the WG had agreed last week that we'd need to request that professional assistance. Louise Marie Hurel 2:Thanks, @Mary Mary Wong:I got dropped from the call but have a staff comment on Question 2 Mary Wong:Back and have raised my hand Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:apologies....is my mic misfiring again? I'm now 0/2 on mics and will be replacing both today. Mary Wong:Yes we are Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):URS does not have a pernalty for frequent offenders , so number of such registrations would be helpful Cyntia King:@Kathy Michael R. Graham:@Kristine -- Yes, that is what I understood Cyntia King:poll ather than survey? Mary Wong:@Kristine, we can move this comment/suggestion from Column 3 to Column 1 (and note it is a Sub Team suggestion, rather than just a single member suggestion). Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Unless members disagree, yes, please. Cyntia King:Suggest connecting w/ registrars to randomly sample registrants David McAuley:That's interesting Kristine, who knew George Kirikos:The demographics should try to match those of potential domain name registrants (e.g. probably skewed somewhat towards business-oriented users, compared to a general demographic). Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Cyntia, we did discuss that, but we wanted people who maybe werent already in the business of registering domains (total newbs) Paul Tattersfield:perhaps by country - china has a lot of registrations George Kirikos:@Paul: probably not a lot of unique registrants, though, from China (many bulk buys by a small number of registrants skew their numbers). Cyntia King:Typically, info is sorted according to a top-level qualifications, then results are sorted & weighted based on details provided by repondents George Kirikos:@Paul: e.g. see the data at: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__ntldstats.com_registra… for bulk registrants. Mary Wong:@Kristine, all - we will also move the suggestion on surveying respondents from different countries from Column 3 to Column 1, and note that it is a Sub TEam suggestion as well. Paul Tattersfield:Pan Mei Gen has a lot of domains and possible renewals! George Kirikos:Indeed. Cyntia King:Meaning, we set a few qualifications, obtain maximum responses containing full respondent data then sort/weight for desired target group. Paul Tattersfield:thanks Kristine good point Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Background: Q4 is specifically here to get to the Graham/Winterfeldt/Shatan proposal. Greg Shatan:Umlaut = 2 dots above certain letters Paul McGrady:Super interesting idea RE: surveying the general public RE: claims notice. Hopefully, we can reach the right folks (potential new gTLD second level registrants who believed that the legacy gTLDs were sold out and that new gTLDs were needed). Michael R. Graham:@Phil -- Agree that notice would have to be revised George Kirikos:@PaulM: those might be as real as unicorns (i.e. it was mostly registrARS/IES who suggested new gTLDs were 'needed', not registrANTS) Jeff Neuman:@george - and your assertion comes from where? Mary Wong:We will check the numbering - sorry, hold on George Kirikos:@Jeff: I didn't notice many potential registrants pushing ICANN to introduce new gTLDs, saying that legacy gTLDs were "sold out". Those folks certainly didn't seem to show up later to buy these new gTLDs, given their subpar sales. Jeff Neuman:@George - that is not a very impartial statement Jeff Neuman:In other words, you are assuming (1) sales are the sole determinate of success, (2) that products/services are only introduced into the market after there is an express demand, etc. Jeff Neuman:Both of which are not legitimate assumptions George Kirikos:@Jeff: take a look at the composition of this PDP --- where are all the new gTLD registrants who've shown up? Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):not all TLDs were created solely for sales, GEO tlds, Community TLDs e.t.c. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):brand TLDs does not need claims George Kirikos:So, if a brand registered "hotels.BRAND", they shouldn't be notified of the hit in the TMCH for "HOTELS"? Jeff Neuman:@George - again, your attempts to correlate unrelated elements to support your assertions are just not helpful Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):@George , Registry approached by different DRP process in such case Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):I belive Michael R. Graham:@Maxim -- Perhaps closed registries may not require claims, but BRAND ones may still require claims. Paul McGrady:+1 Kristina Paul McGrady:oops! Kristine! Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:;) Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):@Michael, brand TLDs are quite closed Jeff Neuman:@Michael, how are you drawing your distinction? David McAuley:Mary, are there staff members at ICANN who focus on surveys, deal with survey contractors, who could speak with us briefly to let us know what is ijnvolved, how we should prepare to seek one? Jeff Neuman:Why does the survey request need to go through Council? Mary Wong:@David, we have colleagues in other departments who have dealt with contractors and data collection, but not necessarily on just surveys, and certainly not on this scale as we are proposing. We're currently discussing with them what they think we on the policy side need to know, especially when submitting a formal request for resources to th GNSO Council. Jeff Neuman:perhaps to get funding? But not the questions themselves, right David McAuley:Thanks Mary Sara Bockey:Agree wtih Paul 100% Mary Wong:@Jeff, yes, taht's right Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:I think we should consider hiring law students to do the URS data gathering....I don't think we need a survey company for that. Paul Tattersfield:Wouldn't law students be atypical? Paul McGrady:@Jeff - that's right. I can't see the GNSO Council getting into the weeds at this stage. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):+1 Kristine , they have more open minded approach Jeff Neuman:Do we need a formal council motion? Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:@ Paul T, maybe, we can discuss pros and cons. We have academics on the PDP and some of us are/were adjunct law profs so we can find students..... Jeff Neuman:I am just trying to look for ways to reduce time Jeff Neuman:because we are sooooo far behind time wise Cyntia King:Why not use students in Statistics grad programs? Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:that would be fine too. :) Michelle DeSmyter:Thursday, 31 August 2017 at 03:00 UTC Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):Math students tend to be interested in numbers and not in sence Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Perhaps we bifurcate the project? Law students read the decisions and pull raw numbers, statistics students do the requested analysis Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Employ all the students... :) Cyntia King:Statistics, not math. These are prole like Nate Silver of Five Thirty-Eight. This would be their bailiwick David McAuley:been a while since i read through INTA survey - beed reminder of link Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):@Cyntia , statistics is math Mary Wong:@David, we will recirculate :) Martin Silva Valent:thanks Phill! George Kirikos:Bye folks. Michael R. Graham:Thanks! Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):bye all Martin Silva Valent:bye all Paul Tattersfield:thanks Phil, all. Bye David McAuley:good bye all Louise Marie Hurel 2:Thanks all Greg Shatan:Bye all.

1 0