September 2017 - GNSO-RPM-WG

Agenda and documents for RPM Working Group call on Wednesday 6 September 2017
by Mary Wong Sept. 6, 2017

Sept. 6, 2017

Dear all, The proposed agenda for our next Working Group call, coming up today at 1700 UTC, is as follows: 1. Roll call (via Adobe Connect and phone bridge only); updates to Statements of Interest 2. Review draft GNSO Council data collection request (including suggested prioritization levels from the Working Group co-chairs) 3. Next steps/next meeting For agenda item #2, the following documents are attached: * A draft request to the GNSO Council, in the form prescribed by the GNSO Operating Procedures, outlining the request, the rationale for the request, an initial estimated budget and list of possible sources, as well as attachments detailing the Charter questions and data collection tasks being contemplated. * A Google Doc showing all the various data collection tasks identified to date (as noted in Attachment 2 to the draft request form described above), where the Working Group co-chairs have noted a preferred prioritization level to each task. The staff understanding is that we will be focusing on a review of the Google Doc on the call. Thanks and cheers Mary

8 12

Recordings, Attendance, AC Chat for Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) PDP Working Group call on Wednesday, 06 September 2017 17:00 UTC
by Terri Agnew Sept. 6, 2017

Sept. 6, 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, 06 September 2017at 17:00 UTC. Attendance of the call is posted on agenda wiki page: <https://community.icann.org/x/NSQhB> https://community.icann.org/x/NSQhB MP3: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-rpm-review-06sep17-en.mp3 Adobe Connect recording: <https://participate.icann.org/p5iuwbk2b0q/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=4c3b942c19b662a3 3da23668e40af4d353ba4e487e0fe89e2b7968116327ab8a> https://participate.icann.org/p5iuwbk2b0q/ The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page:http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/> http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/ Main wiki page for the working group: <https://community.icann.org/x/wCWAAw> https://community.icann.org/x/wCWAAw Thank you. Kind regards, Terri Adobe Connect chat transcript for 06 September 2017: Terri Agnew:Welcome to the Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in all gTLDs PDP Working Group on Wednesday, 06 September 2017 at 17:00 UTCfor 90 minute duration. Terri Agnew:agenda wiki page: <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_ NSQhB&d=DwICaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCI gmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=ZylEGi-ytcsyochM0PJCwXrG2WtOhMCFGBoXilEDxwM &s=0K0u8N7Sjy9Uxc_I1_6XbYliQkX6IBmWK1fVFkDlnNo&e> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_N SQhB&d=DwICaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIg mkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=ZylEGi-ytcsyochM0PJCwXrG2WtOhMCFGBoXilEDxwM& s=0K0u8N7Sjy9Uxc_I1_6XbYliQkX6IBmWK1fVFkDlnNo&e= George Kirikos:Hi folks. George Kirikos:Now it asked me for my name/spelling again. Odd. George Kirikos:Might want to blast out an email reminder. Terri Agnew:sending George Kirikos:You can probably automate that, so it sends out a reminder 1 day before (which seems to already happen) and 5 minutes before. :-) Steve Levy:Hello all Philip Corwin:hello all Mary Wong:That's correct, J Scott - we will be the first Philip Corwin:We are the guinea pigs, lucky us ;-) George Kirikos:Mine wasn't a 'retort', since it came before anyone else's comments. Jeremy Malcolm:"questions" versus "rhetoric"? George Kirikos:Sequence was at: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2017-September/date.html> http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2017-September/date.html Maxim Alzoba(FAITID):Hello All Philip Corwin:I posted a responsive email to Brian at 12:50 pm ET Maxim Alzoba(FAITID):@Terri, I will have to drop the call for SSC call in 53min Mary Wong:@Phil, staff hasn't managed yet to capture your response but we can do so now for AC display if you like. Philip Corwin:That would be helpful, Mary Marina Lewis:Hi everyone Maxim Alzoba(FAITID):I managed to get to the place with wifi Mary Wong:@Phil, got it - I'll put it up in AC after Brian has finished his explanation. George Kirikos:Are all the data requests capturing prior questions? e.g. I recall that we were going to analyze the monthly registry reports to look at various metrics. Was it not requested because we already have that data? George Kirikos:(i.e. have the data, but then plan to analyze it later?) George Kirikos:Data exists, but needs to be put into a form that can be analyzed. Mary Wong:@George, yes and yes (the latter in the sense that the monthly reports are already being incorporated by staff into the spreadsheets we are compiling) George Kirikos:Thanks Mary. Paul Tattersfield:Phil +1 George Kirikos:There's some background noise for someone. George Kirikos:That's assuming the data we have from INTA has some validity, which is in dispute. Philip Corwin:To sum up, we are not free to just ignore the Council adopted DMPM WG recommendations and subseqent procedures, and doing so would leave our future policy recommendations subject to criticism for not being based in data that could have been readily developed. Kathy Kleiman:It was a very dramatic call. Justine Chew:Really? Hmm, I'll have to listen to the recording then. George Kirikos:If data won't change positions, then perhaps those people whose positions are not affected by evidence/facts should consider leaving this PDP. George Kirikos:Since that's not evidence-based policymaking. Mary Wong:We will send around the link and transcript when we get them/ Louise Marie Hurel:Hi all, I apologize for joining late George Kirikos:Or type question into chat. Philip Corwin:recording of that call is available at <https://participate.icann.org/p6upmgoxxzr/> https://participate.icann.org/p6upmgoxxzr/ David McAuley:Thanks Phil George Kirikos:Do we know how much $$$$ was allocated to the WHOIS studies? That's a baseline of how much we should get. George Kirikos:(given this PDP, and that one, are probably among the most important to ICANN) Susan Payne:sorry, I cannot get mike to work David McAuley:Those are major steps Mary jusy mentioned, no? Mary Wong:@David, yes, we (staff) think so Kurt Pritz 2: apologize in advance for this question as I should know the answer. Are we doing this survey because we received a notice that our conclusions should be based in data - or - did we make the decision to do the survey and are now adjusting the methodology due to the new reports on data? Susan Payne:my coment was that I was on the data gathering groups but that this documnent isn't quite what I was expecting. As an example, the TM claims group identified a survey of registrars including data on abandonment rates, but the survey of registrars referred to here is seeking only anecdotal data Philip Corwin:@Kurt-we are pursuing the data needs identified by our subteams, and doing so within the new context prescribed by Council George Kirikos:It'll probably be a lot more than $50K. Mary Wong:@Susan, I hope the second document will be clearer - we added the registrar questions to that document Justine Chew:@Susan, good point. I wanted to ask who was doing a completeness check on all received inputs (from subgroups, WG mail lists, WG calls) -- I presume staff is doing that? George Kirikos:+1 Justine. Kurt Pritz 2:@ Phil - thanks (whew) Mary Wong:@Justine, yes, staff George Kirikos:There were too many '1's in the next attachment, for it to be considered 'prioritized'. :-) George Kirikos:Need to rank the data. Kathy Kleiman:From the Key: "Priority Level 2: Medium Priority (highly desirable for Working Group progress at this stage) George Kirikos:Maybe do it in a Doodle poll? Paul McGrady:Yes. That is better. Lori Schulman:Agree. Guidance from co-chairs would be very useful Susan Payne:agree Kristine Lori Schulman:agree with Kristine as well. Philip Corwin:As you will see, the co-chairs had different views on some of these khouloud Dawahi:yes indeed philip Philip Corwin:One big reason to use professional survey designers is to frame the best possible questions to garner the most useful data Susan Payne:I agree with Lori George Kirikos:Lori: I think part of is that it says "Obtain anecdotal evidence" without actually saying what specific questions are being asked. David McAuley:We would have to have flexibility I would think if we plan to use professional service - they will change it up as far as language goes George Kirikos:+1 J. Scott. George Kirikos:So, there's still a way to go before we get to the actual questions that give us those magnitude/quantitative results that are powerful. Kathy Kleiman:+1 J. Scott Maxim Alzoba(FAITID):do we know of any such survey designer who is aware of the ICANNese lingo? Justine Chew:I truly hope whoever we approach / engage as the professional survey designers have a true appreciation for ICANN's data needs. David McAuley:Great question Maxim, if anyone does I bet Mary does Lori Schulman:and an appreciation of the survery taker as well Maxim Alzoba(FAITID):I think it is the minimal level we need Justine Chew:At the other end, what can be done to compel responses to the (ultimate) survey? David McAuley:"Massive" sounds right to me, @Mary Lori Schulman:Agree, need incentives for responses George Kirikos:There are no 'dumb' questions. Susan Payne:Mary has covered what I was going to say. I don't think it is currently clear from the doc so making it clearer would definitely help Terri Agnew:reminder to mute when not speaking khouloud Dawahi:there are no dumb questions Paul Tattersfield:As long as the WG has chance to review the professional input before the survey is sent out maybe even an iterative process will be needed George Kirikos:Since this is the first time ICANN is going through this process, we don't know the right way to ask for this data, from experience. Mary Wong:@Paul, that is the staff expectation - that the questions will be reviewed by the group before the surveys are sent out Paul McGrady:Agree J Scott. Lori Schulman:It would be very difficult for INTA to promote this survey to its entire membership within the next year given our efforts for the CCT-RT review as we need to prevent survey fatigue. Paul Tattersfield:thanks Mary George Kirikos:@Lori: it shouldn't just be INTA that is surveyed, but all TM holders. George Kirikos:(e.g. random sample from USPTO and/or other national databases, to be representative) Lori Schulman:Agree George. Jonathan Frost (.CLUB):Have to drop off. Apologies. Lori Schulman:but it is unlikely governments will allow this. need to use the associations. Griffin Barnett:apologies for joining late, had a client call come up that just ended George Kirikos:Governments don't need to "allow" anything --- the USPTO database is in the public domain. Paul Tattersfield:@George a subset of large TM holders may be more statistically significant :) Lori Schulman:not just trademark associations but maybe Chambers of Commerce George Kirikos:@PaulT: but less representative. Paul McGrady:I agree with Kurt. Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Agree with Kurt George Kirikos:So, eliminate column 1 entirely? Fine by me. Lori Schulman:I agree with Kurt George Kirikos:(and column 2) Salvador Camacho:Agree Susan Payne:I personally don't give them all the same priority. I have argued against many of them but Kurt is correct that we did this exercise and they made the cut Paul Tattersfield:@George may be - however the two groups usage may be signifcantly different George Kirikos:@PaulT: Indeed they would be....that's why we shouldn't focus on one unrepresentative group when deciding policy for all. Philip Corwin:I will be in the unique position on 9/20 of both presenting the request to Council as a co-chair and considering it as a Councilor Lori Schulman:Phil, would you have to recuse if you are a co-chair? Is this considered a conflict of interest? George Kirikos:I don't think it's considered a conflict of interest -- they have no interest in the outcome of the PDP, just by chairing. Philip Corwin:I don't believe so, Lori Maxim Alzoba(FAITID):I will have to drop this call for GNSO SSC call in 7 min Philip Corwin:No personal or financial benefit or detriment Lori Schulman:I have the SSC call too. George Kirikos:+1 J. Scott Philip Corwin:And Paul is in a rather similar position. Not a full WG co-chair, but a subteam chair Kathy Kleiman:+1 Paul and J. Scott, with a clear discussion of our need for anecdotal and research data Lori Schulman:re: Conflict, just making sure that bases are covered. I wasn't sure and I doubt it is. Cyntia King:I must drop off in 6 mins for call w/ counsel George Kirikos:If they reject that, then we could have another call to prune the list. David McAuley:There is also disclosure about these various roles Philip Corwin:Besides, I vote on Council, when a vote is required, consistent with the BC position, not my individual view George Kirikos:(and should have had more notice, given the documents only arrived 12 hours ago, so not everyone had time to thoroughly review) Mary Wong:OK thanks J Scott Paul Tattersfield:Walk in the shoes of your customer Cyntia King:Agree David Maxim Alzoba(FAITID):bye all Philip Corwin:Diffeering somewhat from Kathy, I believe it may be useful to note UDRPs filed aganst new gTLDs, as a UDRP may indicate more serious infringement where domain transfer was desired. But we can decide that question down the road. George Kirikos:+1 Phil. Paul Tattersfield:Phil +1 Lori Schulman:Need to drop off. Ciao. Paul McGrady:Agree with Susan. Interesting question, but directed to the wrong party. Mary Wong:Should the question be asked of registrars then? George Kirikos:That language of registration might be important, e.g. if there were a disproportionate number of Chinese respondents (to make up an example), because they didn't understand a TMCH notice in English. George Kirikos:Only UDRPs for new gTLDs, though. George Kirikos:Not all UDRPs. Mary Wong:@George, we still have to get all the UDRPs filed after 2012, and "back out" the legacy gTLD complaints. George Kirikos:@Mary: very easy to filter out .com/net/org, etc. :-) Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:And figure out what to do with all the UDRPs that include both. George Kirikos:@Mary: Using UDRPsearch.com, etc., it's easy to pick out the non-com/net/org ones. Mary Wong:@George, the point is that we have to normalize the data, and it may be straightforward to some extent, but not a simple click/sort. Amr Elsadr:Note that the purpose of this question is to help evaluate the efficacy of the Claims Notice by identifying which registrations under new gTLDs during the Claims Period resulted in disputes (UDRPs or URSes). George Kirikos:+1 Susan Elisa Cooper:agree Paul McGrady:Agree with Susan. Justine Chew:Agree with Susan, we should not disregard UDRPs filed against new gTLD John McElwaine:Agree with Susan. Kathy Kleiman:All, we were asked for prioritization. If all is going in - keep it all. Phil Marano:+1 George Kirikos:I thought there was already a consensus (2 or 3 calls ago) for both. George Kirikos:UDRP *isn't* a huge task! George Kirikos:URS = get all cases from NAF; UDRP: do a search, and eliminate those that are com/net/org/biz/info/us/etc. Philip Corwin:We still have to agree on what we are sending to Council, even without prioritization. George Kirikos:Can do the search via WIPO/NAF, or an aggregator like UDRPsearch.com. Georges Nahitchevansky:Agree with Susan George Kirikos:But, won't the researchers be able to go back and confidentially get the TMCH data, just like The Analysis Group did? George Kirikos:(i.e. the data is still available from the TMCH, as to when a recordal was created) George Kirikos:I thought that was already in the document? (was it actually dropped) Susan Payne:domainer bloggers are not investigative reporters. but I didn't take this out George Kirikos:I think it is there, under section 6. George Kirikos:Yes, under "SUBTEAM SUGGESTION"., all the sources Mary asked about in a separate email. George Kirikos:(section 7, actually, not 6) Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:I think my issue is, we're not necessarily "looking for gaming." We're looking for overall Sunrise data. Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:The wording is very loaded. Kiran Malancharuvil:agree with Kristine Mary Wong:@Kristine, that's what we are doing now - researching Sunrise Pricing, Premium Pricing, Reserved Names. Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Correct. Paul McGrady:+1 John McE. Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:We're already doing it...nothing we need permission for. Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Or budget. George Kirikos:@Kristine: doesn't it require permission to use staff resources for it? George Kirikos:Or, can we order Mary et al around, without it? :-) Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:@ George, I thought Mary said they'd already started research George Kirikos:@mary: right. Just want to make sure that we don't get starved for resources to research it fully. George Kirikos:Oops, I meant @Kristine. Terri Agnew:finding the line Mary Wong:@Kristine, @George - staff is starting the blog research (for the sources noted for the WG list) but for the specific terms suggested by the Sub Teams - Sunrise Pricing, Premium Pricing, Reserved Names. Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:feedback.... Mary Wong:I'm a bit concerned at how, as well as the number, of hits that may come back the more general the words we use to search are. Paul McGrady:Agree with J Scott's solution. John McElwaine:Agree as that will make it incumbent that we study the facts behind the reporting George Kirikos:@John: agreed, can't take the reports at face value. They're a starting point. John McElwaine:@George were on the same page - but creating more work for us :) Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Isn't the first step here, just asking for RFPs? George Kirikos:e.g. there was a long thread that uncovered "shill bidding" at one of the domain auction houses, based on a few simple observations. That led to further research by others, etc. But, if we don't have those starting points, we're not in the position to do that additional work. I agree, it is more work! :-) George Kirikos:@Mary: I think the issue I had is the use of the word "sunrise" in that point. Mary Wong:Understood, George - we will rephrase Mary Wong:Apologies for the careless wording here! Mary Wong:@J Scott, yes Susan Payne:ok George Kirikos:I think that solves it. Paul Tattersfield:earlier Kathy Kleiman:old X Justine Chew:Done. Marina Lewis:Old x - thanks Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Excellent chairing J Scott Mary Wong:We are only at the start ... George Kirikos:Will an updated draft be sent out later, for review, before it goes to council? Kathy Kleiman:Congratulations J. Scott! George Kirikos:Because, we only got this document 12 hours ago. Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Agree with George... Elisa Cooper:Great job J Scott Paul McGrady:Great call! Well done everyone. Terri Agnew:next call: The call for the Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in all gTLDs PDP Working Group is scheduled for Wednesday, 13 September 2017 at 17:00 UTC for 90 minute duration. Mary Wong:@George, maybe for information rather than further edits - since the Council deadline is Sunday. Paul Tattersfield:Thanks, bye all Philip Corwin:Thanks all. Good job JS Susan Payne:thanks J. Scott:thanks all khouloud Dawahi:bye George Kirikos:Bye folks. Salvador Camacho:Great call! Bye!

1 0

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

Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] [RPM data collection request]
by Beckham, Brian Sept. 6, 2017

Sept. 6, 2017

Thanks very much Mary and co-chairs, Let me preface my email by saying that while I did miss a few WG calls in late August, I have gone back and read the transcripts. And although it is not clear to me exactly how or when, it seems that somewhere along the way, the idea to come up with a list of questions to inform the discussions of this WG (on which I think there was broad agreement – in some cases perhaps only in a spirit of working compromise) seems to have morphed into a call for a survey. Without seeking to take away from the work that has gone into this, to be honest, when I read through these questions, I land on the conclusion that these questions seem unlikely to provide anything other than yet more opinions and anecdotes. Virtually none of the questions seek actual data (which would read something like: how much did you budget for Sunrises, how many would you have participated in if budget was no issue, and how many did you actually participate in?). Also, the answers to some of them seem so facially obvious that the point of asking them is – to me at least – unclear. For example, it seems very uncontroversial to say that we already know the answer to “whether Premium Pricing and the use of Premium Names and Reserved Names lists affected TM owners’ willingness to participate in Sunrise.” In other words, concretely, what is it that the WG now seeks to achieve by issuing a broad survey on these questions? I would therefore like to suggest we consider leaving these as questions for the WG to consider as it formulates proposed solutions, instead of seeking permission and funds (not to mention additional time) for a survey. Before today’s call, I would furthermore like to ask: have the co-chairs considered issuing a preliminary consensus call to see which aspects of the RPMs we should leave behind as incapable of consensus (e.g., doing away with the TMCH or Sunrises), and which aspects there may be scope for further discussions that could lead to consensus recommendations? Finally, one important caveat: I would have absolutely no problem in principle in asking these or other questions to make the best and most informed recommendations we can. I do however question whether the proposed survey will not assist us to this end. Thanks for considering, and speak to you all soon, Brian From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mary Wong Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2017 6:21 AM To: gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] Agenda and documents for RPM Working Group call on Wednesday 6 September 2017 Dear all, The proposed agenda for our next Working Group call, coming up today at 1700 UTC, is as follows: 1. Roll call (via Adobe Connect and phone bridge only); updates to Statements of Interest 2. Review draft GNSO Council data collection request (including suggested prioritization levels from the Working Group co-chairs) 3. Next steps/next meeting For agenda item #2, the following documents are attached: * A draft request to the GNSO Council, in the form prescribed by the GNSO Operating Procedures, outlining the request, the rationale for the request, an initial estimated budget and list of possible sources, as well as attachments detailing the Charter questions and data collection tasks being contemplated. * A Google Doc showing all the various data collection tasks identified to date (as noted in Attachment 2 to the draft request form described above), where the Working Group co-chairs have noted a preferred prioritization level to each task. The staff understanding is that we will be focusing on a review of the Google Doc on the call. Thanks and cheers Mary

2 1

FOR FINALIZATION: List of domain name industry and brand owner blogs
by Mary Wong Sept. 5, 2017

Sept. 5, 2017

Dear all, Staff has, as noted, placed all suggestions received regarding domain name industry and brand owner blogs on this page on the Working Group wiki space: https://community.icann.org/x/ShMhB. As you may recall, one data collection task that had been agreed on was for staff to search these blogs for relevant articles on the topics of Sunrise and Premium Pricing, and the use of Premium Names and Reserved Names lists. If there are no objections to what is listed, or no further suggestions, staff will go ahead to perform the search as requested as soon as we can. As noted previously, our understanding is that the Working Group does not wish for staff to undertake the analysis or draw inferences from any of the articles or posts we may find; instead, we are to compile these into a document (or set of documents) for the Working Group – or possibly a sub group thereof – to analyze. Please let us know if this understanding is not correct. Thank you. Cheers Mary From: Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org> Date: Tuesday, August 29, 2017 at 18:37 To: Cyntia King <cking(a)modernip.com>, "gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] FOR REVIEW: suggested industry blogs for gathering information; ICANN60 schedule Thanks, Cyntia and George for the suggestions. Staff has placed all suggestions (starting with the initial list circulated by staff) on the Working Group wiki page where this was recorded as an action item: https://community.icann.org/x/ShMhB. We will continue to update the page if more suggestions come in, and will circulate an updated list at the end of this week. Following Working Group agreement on which sources to look at, staff will search the various sources in line with the scope of this set of Charter questions (issues concerning Sunrise and Premium Pricing, and the use of Premium Names and Reserved Names lists). Cheers Mary From: <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Cyntia King <cking(a)modernip.com> Date: Tuesday, August 29, 2017 at 13:27 To: "gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] FOR REVIEW: suggested industry blogs for gathering information; ICANN60 schedule I agree w/ Kiran that publications directed at brand owners should be included. Examples of brand bogs, bulletins & white papers: * MarkMonitor [ markmonitor.com/mmblog ] * CSC Brand Services [ cscdigitalbrand.services/blog ] * INTA [ inta.org/INTABulletin ] * Marcaria [ blog.marcaria.com ] * NetNames [ netnames.com/insights/blo g] * Fairwinds [ blog.fairwindspartners.com ] Cyntia King E: cking@modernip O: +1 81-ModernIP C: +1 818.209.6088 [P Composite (Email)] -----Original Message----- From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of George Kirikos Sent: Tuesday, August 29, 2017 11:40 AM To: gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] FOR REVIEW: suggested industry blogs for gathering information; ICANN60 schedule Hi Paul, On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 12:33 PM, Paul Tattersfield <gpmgroup(a)gmail.com<mailto:gpmgroup@gmail.com>> wrote: > Most people who run a blog do so because they have a passion for what > they write about. I'm sure if ICANN wrote to them asking if they could > provide a list of links to relevant articles for each of the subjects > the WG is looking into most would be happy to help out. It's even easier than that, since most sites have a search function, to find the relevant articles, and/or are publicly indexed in Google, Bing, etc. Indeed, that's what the site owners would be doing to answer such a query -- we can do that ourselves, and save them the time and effort. [that's how I came up with the list of additional sources] What they could be asked for, though, is for sponsored/paid posts to gather *additional* data that this working group needs. They have the audience for that outreach. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/[leap.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.leap.com_&d=DwMFAg&…> _______________________________________________ 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

4 4

Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Directly from INTA's website: What the TTAB has to say about sample size
by George Kirikos Sept. 5, 2017

Sept. 5, 2017

Hi Iain, On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 5:48 AM, CONNOR Iain <Iain.Connor(a)pinsentmasons.com> wrote: > George – on the basis of your acceptance “No one is denying those 33 members > of INTA who answered the survey had > those experiences or opinions.” it is inappropriate for you to persist with > your previous suggestion that this evidence should be ignored. Nice try, but what you left out of your partial quote was the "meat", namely: "What *is* in dispute is whether one should extract any truth about those experiences when talking about the larger populations, namely (1) all INTA members, and (b) all TM holders. Because of the issues with the study, it would not be credible to do so." Which is entirely consistent with what I said, and will persist in saying, namely that the proffered "evidence" has no weight (and should be ignored). The survey is weaker than "a set of anecdotes", weaker than "raised a question as to the overall validity of the survey results", and objectively into the realm of a bad survey for all the reasons previously stated (""However, if the sample of respondents is not representative of the universe from which it was selected, it will be accorded little weight" AND the issues of size, combined). One has to separate advocacy on this group from objective and scientific review. I'm pretty confident that if folks here saw that kind of "evidence" offered by an opponent in a courtroom or tribunal, they'd be making the identical arguments that I am -- and those would be the winning arguments, as they're backed by the long history of science/math/statistics. All the "pounding on the table" in the world won't turn those 33 respondents into the 300+ that might have made them statistically significant, nor fix the fact that they were not a representative sample of the INTA membership, nor the broader group of TM holders worldwide. Paul Keating later wrote: "If it had been issued by any other entity i am sure you would have laughed it out of the room" I'm confident and agree that it would indeed have been the source of great laughter (or in my case, from someone with a background in quantitative finance/math/econometrics, horror at the abuse of statistics/math, followed by laughter). Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/

9 17