That approach makes a lot of sense to me, Jeff.

 

 

Brian Cimbolic

Deputy General Counsel, Public Interest Registry

Office: +1 703 889-5752| Mobile: + 1 571 385-7871| 

www.pir.org | Facebook | Twitter | Instagram | YouTube 

 

 

Confidentiality Note:  Proprietary and confidential to Public Interest Registry.  If received in error, please inform sender and then delete.

 

From: Jeff Neuman [mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2016 12:18 PM
To: Brian F. Cimbolic <BCimbolic@pir.org>; Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>; Dorrain, Kristine <dorraink@amazon.com>
Cc: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org
Subject: RE: [gnso-rpm-wg] FOR REVIEW & DISCUSSION: Provider and Survey Responses on TM-PDDRP

 

I had a different potential interpretation.  Some who responded to the survey did point out issues they have with registries.  But I am not sure those were issues that were ever intended to be addressed by the PDDRP.  So, while we need to respond to those comments, let’s not assume that means changes to the PDDRP to address those issues.  For example, some of those issues may be addressed through different rules for Sunrise going forward, or changes to the reserved names policy going forward (Which may already being addressed by the SubPro PDP Working Group).

 

Again, some concerns were raised in the survey by a few respondents that we need to address.  But I am not convinced that the PDDRP is the right vehicle to address those concerns.

 

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 Brian F. Cimbolic
Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2016 2:13 PM
To: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>; Dorrain, Kristine <dorraink@amazon.com>
Cc: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org
Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] FOR REVIEW & DISCUSSION: Provider and Survey Responses on TM-PDDRP

 

Thanks, Greg.  I disagree and see that interpretation as strained.  Question 7 addresses the very purpose and foundation of the TM-PDDRP (at least at the Second level).  Eleven of the 16 respondents responded to that question by indicating that they did not see a pattern or practice of bad faith.   For those respondents to answer Question 10 affirmatively (if they were asked) would mean that they are asking for a change to the very fundamentals and tenets of the TM-PDDRP, which is outside of the scope of the survey.   Accordingly, only 4 of the 16 respondents actually indicated a desire to see the TM-PDDRP amended.

 

Brian Cimbolic

Deputy General Counsel, Public Interest Registry

Office: +1 703 889-5752| Mobile: + 1 571 385-7871| 

www.pir.org | Facebook | Twitter | Instagram | YouTube 

 

 

Confidentiality Note:  Proprietary and confidential to Public Interest Registry.  If received in error, please inform sender and then delete.

 

From: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2016 4:57 PM
To: Dorrain, Kristine <dorraink@amazon.com>
Cc: Brian F. Cimbolic <BCimbolic@pir.org>; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org
Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] FOR REVIEW & DISCUSSION: Provider and Survey Responses on TM-PDDRP

 

The way the survey was constructed, only those who answered "yes" to Q7 (has there been any bad conduct) and "no" to Q9 (does the TM-PDDRP work) were supposed to answer Q10 (should the PDDRP be amended?).  Only 5 respondents "qualified" to answer Q10.  Of those 5, 4 answered "yes" (the TM-PDDRP should be amended).

 

As a result, we don't know what those who answered "no" to Q7 think about the problem. It's wrong to say "only 5 of the 16 respondents recommended any changes to the TM-PDDRP" because only 5 of the respondents were asked whether the TM-PDDRP should be changed. 

 

If the survey results support anything, they support change to the PDDRP -- since 80% of those asked the question answered YES.  But it would be nice to know what those who answered "no" to question 7 thought.


Greg

 

On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 4:18 PM, Dorrain, Kristine via gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> wrote:

I agree Brian, thank you.

 

 

 

From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Brian F. Cimbolic
Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2016 7:25 AM


To: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org
Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] FOR REVIEW & DISCUSSION: Provider and Survey Responses on TM-PDDRP

 

All – apologies for the late response on this, but I ran into an issue where my email wasn’t hitting the list.  I tried sending this yesterday – trying again now.

 

I agree with Kathy and found reading the actual responses helpful.  As Kathy points out, only 5 of the 16 respondents recommended any changes to the TM-PDDRP and 11 of the 16 (nearly 70%) answered the threshold question (“has there been any conduct by new gTLD registry operators that you believe constitutes a ‘substantial pattern or practice of specific bad faith intent to profit …”) by responding “No.”

 

I agree with J. Scott that the responses are, therefore, overwhelming, but respectfully believe they support the opposite conclusion: that no change is necessary to the TM-PDDRP.

 

Thanks,

 

Brian

 

Brian Cimbolic

Deputy General Counsel, Public Interest Registry

Office: +1 703 889-5752| Mobile: + 1 571 385-7871| 

www.pir.org | Facebook | Twitter | Instagram | YouTube 

 

 

Confidentiality Note:  Proprietary and confidential to Public Interest Registry.  If received in error, please inform sender and then delete.

 

From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kathy Kleiman
Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2016 9:59 AM
To: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org
Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] FOR REVIEW & DISCUSSION: Provider and Survey Responses on TM-PDDRP

 

I think as we evaluate resending the survey, we should also reflect that our time on the TM-PDDRP is largely past. Our work plan has us moving on to 6 months of TMCH and many more months (maybe years) of URS and UDRP.

If the goal was to see if there was anything missing in our analysis of the TM-PDDRP, there was a wide array of community members who did respond - small as it may be.

I am always in favor of educational efforts, but that sounds like a recommendation to me.

Best, Kathy

 

On 10/19/2016 9:51 AM, Petter Rindforth wrote:

Steve,

 

Good point.

 

Perhaps we can rephrase the questioins so that those that replies but have never heard about the system just have to click that box and then - if they want - as the next and (for them) final step are free to make a comment.

I still think that we such way can get some useful inputs like "Ohhh, never heard about it, but it may well be useful of you just cangem/add, etc..."

 

Best,

Petter

 

-- 

Petter Rindforth, LL M 

 

Fenix Legal KB 

Stureplan 4c, 4tr 

114 35 Stockholm 

Sweden 

Direct phone: +46(0)702-369360 

 

 

NOTICE 

This e-mail message is intended solely for the individual or individuals to whom it is addressed. It may contain confidential attorney-client privileged information and attorney work product. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are requested not to read, copy or distribute it or any of the information it contains. Please delete it immediately and notify us by return e-mail. 

Fenix Legal KB, Sweden, www.fenixlegal.eu 

Thank you

 

19 oktober 2016 15:22:44 +02:00, skrev Steve Levy <slevy@accentlawgroup.com>:

As to Petter’s point, I see the lack of knowledge of the PDDRP as a valuable statistic (i.e, understanding the scope so that perhaps further outreach and education efforts can be planned).  However, I’m wondering what value we’re expecting from asking those who’ve never heard of the Policy to comment upon it or answer any other questions in the survey.  How can one provide any reliable or helpful comments or question responses on a topic of which they have no knowledge?

 

Regards,

Steve

 

cid:image002.jpg@01D22A0B.4A0DA220

Steven M. Levy, Esq.

Accent Law Group, Inc.

301 Fulton St.

Philadelphia, PA 19147

United States

Website: www.AccentLawGroup.com

LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/in/stevelevy43a/ 

 

 

On 10/19/16, 8:39 AM, "gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Paul Keating" <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org on behalf of paul@law.es> wrote:

 

When we send it out the email should explain that we need responses.

 

Regarding use of the sample yes I agree all information is good. However we really cannot rely upon it for statistical purposes and should note that in our report.

 

Sincerely,

Paul Keating, Esq.

 

On Oct 19, 2016, at 1:52 PM, gtheo <gtheo@xs4all.nl> wrote:

 

Agreed, if the sample size is too small, we should send it again.

 

As mentioned before, usually the response rate is rather low when it comes to these survey's, this has never stopped us to take the results into account in previous exercises.

 

Regards,

 

Theo Geurts | Compliance & Policy Officer

 

Realtime Register B.V.

 

Ceintuurbaan 32A

8024 AA - ZWOLLE - The Netherlands

 

 

 

Petter Rindforth schreef op 2016-10-19 09:57 AM:

Agree.

Let's try to send it out again, and maybe this time especially add

that we appreciate to get comments even if the TM-PDDRP has never been

considered or is totally unknown.

I sent a reminder to a couple of IP attorney groups, and got a

response back from a number of members that they had never heard about

the TM-PDDRP and therefore saw no reason to reply to the Survey.

Best,

Petter

--

Petter Rindforth, LL M

Fenix Legal KB

Stureplan 4c, 4tr

114 35 Stockholm

Sweden

Direct phone: +46(0)702-369360

NOTICE

This e-mail message is intended solely for the individual or

individuals to whom it is addressed. It may contain confidential

attorney-client privileged information and attorney work product. If

the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are

requested not to read, copy or distribute it or any of the information

it contains. Please delete it immediately and notify us by return

e-mail.

Fenix Legal KB, Sweden, www.fenixlegal.eu

Thank you

18 oktober 2016 15:45:45 +02:00, skrev Thomas, Christopher M.

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

-----Original Message-----

[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

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-----

[mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of J. Scott Evans

Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2016 8:22 AM

To: George Kirikos

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)

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:

"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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Given the above, I'd place little weight on the results, either

"for"

something or "against" something.

Sincerely,

George Kirikos

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

From: <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of David Tait

Date: Tuesday, October 18, 2016 at 2:36 AM

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

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

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

@Jintlaw

On Behalf Of Mary Wong

Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2016 3:49 PM

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:

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)

Telephone: +1-603-5744889

________________________________

<ACL>

_______________________________________________

gnso-rpm-wg mailing list

_______________________________________________

gnso-rpm-wg mailing list

_______________________________________________

gnso-rpm-wg mailing list

_______________________________________________

gnso-rpm-wg mailing list

________________________________

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

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]

_______________________________________________

gnso-rpm-wg mailing list

Links:

------

_______________________________________________

gnso-rpm-wg mailing list

 

_______________________________________________

gnso-rpm-wg mailing list

_______________________________________________

gnso-rpm-wg mailing list

_______________________________________________

gnso-rpm-wg mailing list

 

 

_______________________________________________
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