1. The sample size appears to be 16 (from Q2), so the statistical margin of error for such a small sample size is enormous. The total number of respondents who "overwhelmingly" believe that the PDDRP should change is 5 (answer to Q10), which is actually 31.25% of those who participated in the survey (5 of 16). 2. Many of the numbers don't add up. e.g. (a) for Q4, there were 19 responses, despite the sample size being 16! (b) for Q9, there were 6 responses, when the most there should have been is 5 (given there were 5 "yes" responses in Q7). (c) for Q10, there were 6 responses, when the most there should have been is 5 (given there were 5 "no" responses in Q9). There were only 9 visible answers (i.e. there was no Q1 shown in the document), so it's disturbing that one-third of the survey results don't add up properly. I'm not sure what software was used to display the survey, but tools like SurveyMonkey, etc. usually allow "conditional branching" or "skip logic" to only show some questions to people who answer a prior question in a certain manner, etc. https://www.surveymonkey.com/mp/tour/skiplogic/ Given the above, I'd place little weight on the results, either "for" something or "against" something. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 5:56 AM, J. Scott Evans <jsevans@adobe.com> wrote:
Wow. The respondents seem to really believe (overwhelmingly so) that we need to amend the PDDRP to make is useable.
Thoughts? Discussion?
J. Scott
J. Scott Evans | Associate General Counsel - Trademarks, Copyright, Domains & Marketing |
Adobe
345 Park Avenue
San Jose, CA 95110 408.536.5336 (tel), 408.709.6162 (cell) jsevans@adobe.com
www.adobe.com
From: <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of David Tait <david.tait@icann.org> Date: Tuesday, October 18, 2016 at 2:36 AM To: "gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>
Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] FOR REVIEW & DISCUSSION: Provider and Survey Responses on TM-PDDRP
Dear All
Further to my previous email I attach a further revised version of this document which (following a request from the co-chairs) now contains the graphs once again.
Kind regards,
David
From: David Tait <david.tait@icann.org> Date: Friday, 14 October 2016 at 15:08 To: <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Cc: Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] FOR REVIEW & DISCUSSION: Provider and Survey Responses on TM-PDDRP
Dear Jeff
Further to your previous email I am pleased to attach a consolidated version of the responses received.
Kind regards,
David
From: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> Date: Thursday, October 13, 2016 at 11:09 To: Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org>, "gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: RE: [gnso-rpm-wg] FOR REVIEW & DISCUSSION: Provider and Survey Responses on TM-PDDRP
Thanks Mary for this. Is there a way to combine all of the written responses in the summary document as well especially to questions 6, 7, 8, 10.
Jeffrey J. Neuman
Senior Vice President |Valideus USA| Com Laude USA
1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600
Mclean, VA 22102, United States
E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com
T: +1.703.635.7514
M: +1.202.549.5079
@Jintlaw
From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mary Wong Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2016 3:49 PM To: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] FOR REVIEW & DISCUSSION: Provider and Survey Responses on TM-PDDRP
Dear all,
You will recall that the Working Group had agreed to resume deliberations over the Trademark Post-Delegation Dispute Resolution Procedure (TM-PDDRP) after receipt of responses from the TM-PDDRP providers and closure of the Community Survey.
We received responses from two providers – FORUM and WIPO, for which we thank Brian Beckham, Ty Gray, Daniel Legerski and their colleagues. We also collected sixteen community member responses to the TM-PDDRP Community Survey, including from registrars and intellectual property rights-holders. All the responses, as well as an aggregated data report on the Community Survey, have now been uploaded to the Working Group wiki space here: https://community.icann.org/x/ugqsAw[community.icann.org].
The Working Group co-chairs have asked that Working Group members review these responses in time for our next call on 19 October 2016, where, if time permits, we will start discussing them. At the moment, we anticipate that a fuller review, including community participation, will be the focus of the Working Group’s open meeting at ICANN57 in Hyderabad. This will allow us to complete this initial review of the TM-PDDRP shortly thereafter.
FYI the tentative date and time of the open Working Group meeting at ICANN57 is currently Monday 7 November (Day 5 of the meeting), from 11.00-12.30 local Hyderabad time. As with all these sessions, remote participation facilities will be made available for those who will not be present in Hyderabad.
Thanks and cheers
Mary
Mary Wong
Senior Policy Director
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
Email: mary.wong@icann.org
Telephone: +1-603-5744889
________________________________
<ACL>
_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg