Statton Hammock
Vice-President, Business & Legal Affairs
Office | 425-298-2367
Mobile | 425-891-9297
statton@rightside.rocksAll – 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 | Twitt
er | 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
Fax: +46(0)8-4631010
Direct phone: +46(0)702-369360
E-mail: petter.rindforth@fenixlegal.eu
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
Steven M. Levy, Esq.
Accent Law Group, Inc.
301 Fulton St.
Philadelphia, PA 19147
United States
Phone: +1-215-327-9094
Email: slevy@AccentLawGroup.
com 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
Fax: +46(0)8-4631010
Direct phone: +46(0)702-369360
E-mail: petter.rindforth@fenixlegal.eu
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 MSent: 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 EvansSent: 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)
www.adobe.com [2]
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
www.adobe.com [2]
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
www.adobe.com [2]
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
www.adobe.com [2]
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
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"
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)
Email: mary.wong@icann.org
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 listgnso-rpm-wg@icann.orghttps://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
