I agree with Renee. And if we do not get a significant response, I think we need to make a determination on the data that we have. Thanks, Chris _______________________________ Christopher Thomas Partner Parker Poe PNC Plaza | 301 Fayetteville Street | Suite 1400 | Raleigh, NC 27601 Office: 919.835.4641 | Fax: 919.834.4564 Visit our website at www.parkerpoe.com -----Original Message----- From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Reuter, Renee M Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2016 9:24 AM To: J. Scott Evans; George Kirikos Cc: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] FOR REVIEW & DISCUSSION: Provider and Survey Responses on TM-PDDRP I think it would be unfair to those who took the time to send in responses for us to ignore the survey results. I would be in favor of recirculating the survey. Renee -----Original Message----- From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of J. Scott Evans Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2016 8:22 AM To: George Kirikos Cc: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] FOR REVIEW & DISCUSSION: Provider and Survey Responses on TM-PDDRP Query to our group. If the majority feels the sample size is just too small, what should we do? Ask for additional input by recirculating the survey. Taking George's points and ignore the survey b/c the sample is too small? Do other have another alternative? 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 On 10/18/16, 6:18 AM, "George Kirikos" <icann@leap.com> wrote:
J. Scott:
Your first email asked for "Thoughts?" and "Discussion"? Then, after receiving my thoughts and discussion on the survey, you attempted to delegitimize those thoughts and discussion by saying what you said:
http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2016-October/000685.html
"I am not going to argue statistics with you. You can say whatever you want to discredit this input. We asked for input. We received it and it gave us a clear direction. Just because the direction is in direction opposition to your personal position is no reason to ignore the input. I would suggest that you rally those who share your views the next time we do outreach."
with the entire basis of that statement ("Just because...") based on a false premise that I'm against changing the PDDRP. A false premise. I simply pointed out simple truths, a total sample size of only 16, with only 5 in favour of PDDRP changes. If those observations were so "dangerous" that you "couldn't argue statistics", but instead sought to attack the person making them, that says a lot about the strength of your arguments.
And then you made the reckless suggestion that folks should be attempting to artificially affect the outcome of the PDP by "rallying" people who "share your views".
I don't have any "anti-IP animus" --- I've long been opposed to cybersquatting! I've even assisted TM holders pursue cybersquatters. I am against *over-reaching* by some TM holders and am in favour of *balanced* policy that protects the interests of domain name registrants, in accordance with established law.
Stop trying to label people, and instead listen to the arguments and facts they put forward.
Here were the undeniable FACTS: 16 total response, 5 in favour of PDDRP changes.
In my view, as I said before, the sample size is too small, and there were flaws in the survey where the numbers didn't add up properly.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 8:47 AM, J. Scott Evans <jsevans@adobe.com> wrote:
George:
I apologize if you feel attacked. That was not my intent. It was, however, my intent to point out that our group reached out to the community for feedback. We got that feedback and it gave us a directive. If we applied your same argument, I could say that the anti-IP sentiments of the NCUC have been championed for over 18 years by no more than 10 people who claim to represent all non-contracted, non-commercial parties. That said, and despite only seeing the same voices raise the same concerns time and time again, we have listened, debated, re-debated, and sought input. The issues/concerns of these parties are always on the table despite only being put there by a very small group of people. So, I think we should take into account the call for change in the PDDRP and take action. Others may disagree and our consensus may be that we should not take action.
Finally, I follow your work in many working groups and, IMHO, you have a clear anti-IP animus and I do believe that flavors your positions. I may be wrong, but I am entitled to my opinion and I can express it. It is not meant to insult you or demean your positions. It is meant to call a spade a spade. I am pro-IP and proud of it. I will advocate for trademark owners when not acting in my capacity of chair. As Chair, it is my duty to make sure ALL viewpoints are heard and considered, even those with which I strongly disagree.
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
On 10/18/16, 5:36 AM, "gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org on behalf of George Kirikos" <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org on behalf of icann@leap.com> wrote:
J. Scott:
What are you talking about? I've already made it clear (during the calls) that I'm in *favour* of improving the PDDRP! Perhaps you've not been paying attention. For you to attack my earlier response on the basis that the "input" is in "opposition to (my) personal position" is ridiculous. I would have made the comments I made regardless of my own position, for the clear and logical reasons I stated, which had absolutely nothing to do with the actual answers to the survey but instead were based on (1) total number of responses and (2) numbers not adding up properly.
Furthermore, to suggest that *anyone* in the group should "rally those who share your views the next time" is entirely inappropriate, in my opinion. It's suggesting that instead of this working group doing a "scientific" survey, a *representative* sample of the population of stakeholders, that folks should instead be engaged in electioneering in order to artificially manipulate the outcome. For that suggestion to come from one of the co-chairs of this working group is even more disturbing.
Lastly, I properly noted that there were a total of 5 people (out of 16 survey participants) believe that the PDDRP should change. That's 31.25%, a mathematical fact. You might label that an "overwhelming" response and a "clear direction", but I disagree, for the reasons I stated in my first email, and say so *despite* my own personal opinion on the issue.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 8:13 AM, J. Scott Evans <jsevans@adobe.com> wrote:
George:
I am not going to argue statistics with you. You can say whatever you want to discredit this input. We asked for input. We received it and it gave us a clear direction. Just because the direction is in direction opposition to your personal position is no reason to ignore the input. I would suggest that you rally those who share your views the next time we do outreach.
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
On 10/18/16, 5:08 AM, "gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org on behalf of George Kirikos" <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org on behalf of icann@leap.com> wrote:
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 Group¹s 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
gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg ________________________________ CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed and may contain confidential and privileged information protected by law. If you received this e-mail in error, any review, use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of the e-mail is strictly prohibited. Please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail and delete all copies from your system. _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL: This electronic message and any attachments are confidential property of the sender. The information is intended only or the use of the person to whom it was addressed. Any other interception, copying, accessing, or disclosure of this message is prohibited. The sender takes no responsibility for any unauthorized reliance on this message. If you have received this message in error, please immediately notify the sender and purge the message you received. Do not forward this message without permission. [ppab_p&c]