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

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

---------------------------------------- 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. As contrasted with the newbies such as yourself, J. Scott, who continue to champion maximalist intellectual monopoly positions with no evidence that they have the support of the vast majority of trademark owners who, curiously, are neither multinational corporations nor high priced American law firms. Very disappointed to see one of our tri-chairs resort to quasi-ad hominem attacks when confronted with a difference of opinion. That doesn't portend well for the future of this working group. Edward Morris GNSO Councillor Noncommercial Stakeholders Group

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

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]

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 T: +31.384530759 F: +31.384524734 U: www.realtimeregister.com E: legal@realtimeregister.com 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

www.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. <christhomas@parkerpoe.com>:

...

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 [1]

-----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 [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:

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 [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

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 [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

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 [2]

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]

_______________________________________________

gnso-rpm-wg mailing list

gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org

https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg

Links: ------ [1] http://www.parkerpoe.com [2] http://www.adobe.com _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg

I think we may rely on it for statistical purposes but should note the sample size in the report. _______________________________ 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 Paul Keating Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2016 8:40 AM To: gtheo Cc: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] FOR REVIEW & DISCUSSION: Provider and Survey Responses on TM-PDDRP 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

T: +31.384530759 F: +31.384524734 U: www.realtimeregister.com E: legal@realtimeregister.com

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 www.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. <christhomas@parkerpoe.com>:

...

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 [1] -----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 [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: 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 [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 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 [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 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 [2] 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] _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg Links: ------ [1] http://www.parkerpoe.com [2] http://www.adobe.com _______________________________________________ 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

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:7A4BE296-E433-40E1-BE3F-34A1A7AD2F08] 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<mailto:slevy@accentlawgroup.com> Website: www.AccentLawGroup.com<http://www.accentlawgroup.com/> <http://www.accentlawgroup.com/>LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/in/stevelevy43a/<http://www.linkedin.com/in/stevelevy43a/> On 10/19/16, 8:39 AM, "gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Paul Keating" <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of paul@law.es<mailto: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<mailto: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 T: +31.384530759 F: +31.384524734 U: www.realtimeregister.com E: legal@realtimeregister.com<mailto:legal@realtimeregister.com> 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<mailto:petter.rindforth@fenixlegal.eu> www.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. <christhomas@parkerpoe.com<mailto:christhomas@parkerpoe.com>>: 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 [1] -----Original Message----- From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto: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> [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<mailto: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<mailto:jsevans@adobe.com> www.adobe.com [2] On 10/18/16, 6:18 AM, "George Kirikos" <icann@leap.com<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:jsevans@adobe.com> www.adobe.com [2] On 10/18/16, 5:36 AM, "gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of George Kirikos" <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of icann@leap.com<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:jsevans@adobe.com> www.adobe.com [2] On 10/18/16, 5:08 AM, "gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of George Kirikos" <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of icann@leap.com<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:jsevans@adobe.com> www.adobe.com [2] From: <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of David Tait <david.tait@icann.org<mailto:david.tait@icann.org>> Date: Tuesday, October 18, 2016 at 2:36 AM To: "gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto:david.tait@icann.org>> Date: Friday, 14 October 2016 at 15:08 To: <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>> Cc: Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>> Date: Thursday, October 13, 2016 at 11:09 To: Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>>, "gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto: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> [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<mailto: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<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org> Telephone: +1-603-5744889 ________________________________ <ACL> _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto: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] _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg Links: ------ [1] http://www.parkerpoe.com [2] http://www.adobe.com _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg

Petter, For those who have never heard of the PDDRP, could we include a short description of it or perhaps a link to the Policy when we recirculate the survey? This could both help our survey results and also serve as an educational outreach all in one! Regards, Steve From: Petter Rindforth <petter.rindforth@fenixlegal.eu<mailto:petter.rindforth@fenixlegal.eu>> Reply-To: "petter.rindforth@fenixlegal.eu<mailto:petter.rindforth@fenixlegal.eu>" <petter.rindforth@fenixlegal.eu<mailto:petter.rindforth@fenixlegal.eu>> Date: Wednesday, October 19, 2016 at 9:51 AM To: "Steven M. Levy, Esq." <slevy@accentlawgroup.com<mailto:slevy@accentlawgroup.com>> Cc: "gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] FOR REVIEW & DISCUSSION: Provider and Survey Responses on TM-PDDRP 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<mailto:petter.rindforth@fenixlegal.eu> www.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<mailto: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:7A4BE296-E433-40E1-BE3F-34A1A7AD2F08] 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<mailto:slevy@accentlawgroup.com> Website: www.AccentLawGroup.com<http://www.accentlawgroup.com/> <http://www.accentlawgroup.com/>LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/in/stevelevy43a/<http://www.linkedin.com/in/stevelevy43a/> On 10/19/16, 8:39 AM, "gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Paul Keating" <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of paul@law.es<mailto: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<mailto: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 T: +31.384530759 F: +31.384524734 U: www.realtimeregister.com E: legal@realtimeregister.com<mailto:legal@realtimeregister.com> 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<mailto:petter.rindforth@fenixlegal.eu> www.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. <christhomas@parkerpoe.com<mailto:christhomas@parkerpoe.com>>: 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 [1] -----Original Message----- From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto: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> [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<mailto: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<mailto:jsevans@adobe.com> www.adobe.com [2] On 10/18/16, 6:18 AM, "George Kirikos" <icann@leap.com<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:jsevans@adobe.com> www.adobe.com [2] On 10/18/16, 5:36 AM, "gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of George Kirikos" <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of icann@leap.com<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:jsevans@adobe.com> www.adobe.com [2] On 10/18/16, 5:08 AM, "gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of George Kirikos" <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of icann@leap.com<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:jsevans@adobe.com> www.adobe.com [2] From: <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of David Tait <david.tait@icann.org<mailto:david.tait@icann.org>> Date: Tuesday, October 18, 2016 at 2:36 AM To: "gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto:david.tait@icann.org>> Date: Friday, 14 October 2016 at 15:08 To: <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>> Cc: Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>> Date: Thursday, October 13, 2016 at 11:09 To: Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>>, "gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto: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> [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<mailto: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<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org> Telephone: +1-603-5744889 ________________________________ <ACL> _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto: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] _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg Links: ------ [1] http://www.parkerpoe.com [2] http://www.adobe.com _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg

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<http://www.pir.org/> | Facebook<http://www.facebook.com/PIRegistry> | Twitter<http://twitter.com/PIRegistry> | Instagram<http://instagram.com/PIRegistry> | YouTube<http://www.youtube.com/PIRegistry> 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<mailto:petter.rindforth@fenixlegal.eu> www.fenixlegal.eu<http://www.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<http://www.fenixlegal.eu> Thank you 19 oktober 2016 15:22:44 +02:00, skrev Steve Levy <slevy@accentlawgroup.com><mailto: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:image001.jpg@01D229F3.038D4F70] 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<mailto:slevy@accentlawgroup.com> Website: www.AccentLawGroup.com<http://www.accentlawgroup.com/> LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/in/stevelevy43a/<http://www.linkedin.com/in/stevelevy43a/> On 10/19/16, 8:39 AM, "gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Paul Keating" <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of paul@law.es<mailto: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<mailto: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 T: +31.384530759 F: +31.384524734 U: www.realtimeregister.com<http://www.realtimeregister.com> E: legal@realtimeregister.com<mailto:legal@realtimeregister.com> 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<mailto:petter.rindforth@fenixlegal.eu> www.fenixlegal.eu<http://www.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<http://www.fenixlegal.eu> Thank you 18 oktober 2016 15:45:45 +02:00, skrev Thomas, Christopher M. <christhomas@parkerpoe.com<mailto:christhomas@parkerpoe.com>>: 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<http://www.parkerpoe.com> [1] -----Original Message----- From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto: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> [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<mailto: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<mailto:jsevans@adobe.com> www.adobe.com<http://www.adobe.com> [2] On 10/18/16, 6:18 AM, "George Kirikos" <icann@leap.com<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:jsevans@adobe.com> www.adobe.com<http://www.adobe.com> [2] On 10/18/16, 5:36 AM, "gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of George Kirikos" <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of icann@leap.com<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:jsevans@adobe.com> www.adobe.com<http://www.adobe.com> [2] On 10/18/16, 5:08 AM, "gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of George Kirikos" <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of icann@leap.com<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:jsevans@adobe.com> www.adobe.com<http://www.adobe.com> [2] From: <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of David Tait <david.tait@icann.org<mailto:david.tait@icann.org>> Date: Tuesday, October 18, 2016 at 2:36 AM To: "gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto:david.tait@icann.org>> Date: Friday, 14 October 2016 at 15:08 To: <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>> Cc: Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>> Date: Thursday, October 13, 2016 at 11:09 To: Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>>, "gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto: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> [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<mailto: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]<https://community.icann.org/x/ugqsAw%5bcommunity.icann.org%5d>. 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<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org> Telephone: +1-603-5744889 ________________________________ <ACL> _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto: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] _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg Links: ------ [1] http://www.parkerpoe.com [2] http://www.adobe.com _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg

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<http://www.pir.org/> | Facebook<http://www.facebook.com/PIRegistry> | Twitter<http://twitter.com/PIRegistry> | Instagram<http://instagram.com/PIRegistry> | YouTube<http://www.youtube.com/PIRegistry> 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> [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<mailto: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<mailto:petter.rindforth@fenixlegal.eu> www.fenixlegal.eu<http://www.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<http://www.fenixlegal.eu> Thank you 19 oktober 2016 15:22:44 +02:00, skrev Steve Levy <slevy@accentlawgroup.com><mailto: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 Phone: +1-215-327-9094 Email: slevy@AccentLawGroup.com<mailto:slevy@accentlawgroup.com> Website: www.AccentLawGroup.com<http://www.accentlawgroup.com/> LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/in/stevelevy43a/<http://www.linkedin.com/in/stevelevy43a/> On 10/19/16, 8:39 AM, "gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Paul Keating" <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of paul@law.es<mailto: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<mailto: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 T: +31.384530759 F: +31.384524734 U: www.realtimeregister.com<http://www.realtimeregister.com> E: legal@realtimeregister.com<mailto:legal@realtimeregister.com> 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<mailto:petter.rindforth@fenixlegal.eu> www.fenixlegal.eu<http://www.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<http://www.fenixlegal.eu> Thank you 18 oktober 2016 15:45:45 +02:00, skrev Thomas, Christopher M. <christhomas@parkerpoe.com<mailto:christhomas@parkerpoe.com>>: 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<http://www.parkerpoe.com> [1] -----Original Message----- From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto: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> [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<mailto: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<mailto:jsevans@adobe.com> www.adobe.com<http://www.adobe.com> [2] On 10/18/16, 6:18 AM, "George Kirikos" <icann@leap.com<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:jsevans@adobe.com> www.adobe.com<http://www.adobe.com> [2] On 10/18/16, 5:36 AM, "gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of George Kirikos" <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of icann@leap.com<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:jsevans@adobe.com> www.adobe.com<http://www.adobe.com> [2] On 10/18/16, 5:08 AM, "gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of George Kirikos" <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of icann@leap.com<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:jsevans@adobe.com> www.adobe.com<http://www.adobe.com> [2] From: <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of David Tait <david.tait@icann.org<mailto:david.tait@icann.org>> Date: Tuesday, October 18, 2016 at 2:36 AM To: "gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto:david.tait@icann.org>> Date: Friday, 14 October 2016 at 15:08 To: <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>> Cc: Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>> Date: Thursday, October 13, 2016 at 11:09 To: Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>>, "gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto: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> [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<mailto: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]<https://community.icann.org/x/ugqsAw%5bcommunity.icann.org%5d>. 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<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org> Telephone: +1-603-5744889 ________________________________ <ACL> _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto: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] _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg Links: ------ [1] http://www.parkerpoe.com [2] http://www.adobe.com _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg

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<http://www.pir.org/> | Facebook<http://www.facebook.com/PIRegistry> | Twitter<http://twitter.com/PIRegistry> | Instagram<http://instagram.com/PIRegistry> | YouTube<http://www.youtube.com/PIRegistry> 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<mailto: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> [mailto: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<mailto: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<tel:%2B1%20703%20889-5752>| Mobile: + 1 571 385-7871<tel:%2B%201%20571%20385-7871>| www.pir.org<http://www.pir.org/> | Facebook<http://www.facebook.com/PIRegistry> | Twitter<http://twitter.com/PIRegistry> | Instagram<http://instagram.com/PIRegistry> | YouTube<http://www.youtube.com/PIRegistry> 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> [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<mailto: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<tel:%2B46%280%298-4631010> Direct phone: +46(0)702-369360 E-mail: petter.rindforth@fenixlegal.eu<mailto:petter.rindforth@fenixlegal.eu> www.fenixlegal.eu<http://www.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<http://www.fenixlegal.eu> Thank you 19 oktober 2016 15:22:44 +02:00, skrev Steve Levy <slevy@accentlawgroup.com><mailto: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 Phone: +1-215-327-9094<tel:%2B1-215-327-9094> Email: slevy@AccentLawGroup.com<mailto:slevy@accentlawgroup.com> Website: www.AccentLawGroup.com<http://www.accentlawgroup.com/> LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/in/stevelevy43a/<http://www.linkedin.com/in/stevelevy43a/> On 10/19/16, 8:39 AM, "gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Paul Keating" <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of paul@law.es<mailto: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<mailto: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 T: +31.384530759<tel:%2B31.384530759> F: +31.384524734<tel:%2B31.384524734> U: www.realtimeregister.com<http://www.realtimeregister.com> E: legal@realtimeregister.com<mailto:legal@realtimeregister.com> 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<tel:%2B46%280%298-4631010> Direct phone: +46(0)702-369360 E-mail: petter.rindforth@fenixlegal.eu<mailto:petter.rindforth@fenixlegal.eu> www.fenixlegal.eu<http://www.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<http://www.fenixlegal.eu> Thank you 18 oktober 2016 15:45:45 +02:00, skrev Thomas, Christopher M. <christhomas@parkerpoe.com<mailto:christhomas@parkerpoe.com>>: 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<tel:919.835.4641> | Fax: 919.834.4564<tel:919.834.4564> Visit our website at www.parkerpoe.com<http://www.parkerpoe.com> [1] -----Original Message----- From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto: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> [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<mailto: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:408.536.5336> (tel), 408.709.6162<tel:408.709.6162> (cell) jsevans@adobe.com<mailto:jsevans@adobe.com> www.adobe.com<http://www.adobe.com> [2] On 10/18/16, 6:18 AM, "George Kirikos" <icann@leap.com<mailto: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<tel:416-588-0269> http://www.leap.com/ On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 8:47 AM, J. Scott Evans <jsevans@adobe.com<mailto: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:408.536.5336> (tel), 408.709.6162 (cell) jsevans@adobe.com<mailto:jsevans@adobe.com> www.adobe.com<http://www.adobe.com> [2] On 10/18/16, 5:36 AM, "gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of George Kirikos" <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of icann@leap.com<mailto: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<tel:416-588-0269> http://www.leap.com/ On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 8:13 AM, J. Scott Evans <jsevans@adobe.com<mailto: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:408.536.5336> (tel), 408.709.6162 (cell) jsevans@adobe.com<mailto:jsevans@adobe.com> www.adobe.com<http://www.adobe.com> [2] On 10/18/16, 5:08 AM, "gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of George Kirikos" <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of icann@leap.com<mailto: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<tel:416-588-0269> http://www.leap.com/ On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 5:56 AM, J. Scott Evans <jsevans@adobe.com<mailto: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:408.536.5336> (tel), 408.709.6162 (cell) jsevans@adobe.com<mailto:jsevans@adobe.com> www.adobe.com<http://www.adobe.com> [2] From: <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of David Tait <david.tait@icann.org<mailto:david.tait@icann.org>> Date: Tuesday, October 18, 2016 at 2:36 AM To: "gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto:david.tait@icann.org>> Date: Friday, 14 October 2016 at 15:08 To: <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>> Cc: Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>> Date: Thursday, October 13, 2016 at 11:09 To: Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>>, "gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> T: +1.703.635.7514<tel:%2B1.703.635.7514> M: +1.202.549.5079<tel:%2B1.202.549.5079> @Jintlaw From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto: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]<https://community.icann.org/x/ugqsAw%5bcommunity.icann.org%5d>. 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<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org> Telephone: +1-603-5744889<tel:%2B1-603-5744889> ________________________________ <ACL> _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto: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] _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg Links: ------ [1] http://www.parkerpoe.com [2] http://www.adobe.com _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg

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<mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto: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<http://www.pir.org/> | Facebook<http://www.facebook.com/PIRegistry> | Twitter<http://twitter.com/PIRegistry> | Instagram<http://instagram.com/PIRegistry> | YouTube<http://www.youtube.com/PIRegistry> 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<mailto:dorraink@amazon.com>> Cc: Brian F. Cimbolic <BCimbolic@pir.org<mailto:BCimbolic@pir.org>>; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto: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> [mailto: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<mailto: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<tel:%2B1%20703%20889-5752>| Mobile: + 1 571 385-7871<tel:%2B%201%20571%20385-7871>| www.pir.org<http://www.pir.org/> | Facebook<http://www.facebook.com/PIRegistry> | Twitter<http://twitter.com/PIRegistry> | Instagram<http://instagram.com/PIRegistry> | YouTube<http://www.youtube.com/PIRegistry> 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> [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<mailto: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<tel:%2B46%280%298-4631010> Direct phone: +46(0)702-369360 E-mail: petter.rindforth@fenixlegal.eu<mailto:petter.rindforth@fenixlegal.eu> www.fenixlegal.eu<http://www.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<http://www.fenixlegal.eu> Thank you 19 oktober 2016 15:22:44 +02:00, skrev Steve Levy <slevy@accentlawgroup.com><mailto: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 Phone: +1-215-327-9094<tel:%2B1-215-327-9094> Email: slevy@AccentLawGroup.com<mailto:slevy@accentlawgroup.com> Website: www.AccentLawGroup.com<http://www.accentlawgroup.com/> LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/in/stevelevy43a/<http://www.linkedin.com/in/stevelevy43a/> On 10/19/16, 8:39 AM, "gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Paul Keating" <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of paul@law.es<mailto: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<mailto: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 T: +31.384530759<tel:%2B31.384530759> F: +31.384524734<tel:%2B31.384524734> U: www.realtimeregister.com<http://www.realtimeregister.com> E: legal@realtimeregister.com<mailto:legal@realtimeregister.com> 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<tel:%2B46%280%298-4631010> Direct phone: +46(0)702-369360 E-mail: petter.rindforth@fenixlegal.eu<mailto:petter.rindforth@fenixlegal.eu> www.fenixlegal.eu<http://www.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<http://www.fenixlegal.eu> Thank you 18 oktober 2016 15:45:45 +02:00, skrev Thomas, Christopher M. <christhomas@parkerpoe.com<mailto:christhomas@parkerpoe.com>>: 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<tel:919.835.4641> | Fax: 919.834.4564<tel:919.834.4564> Visit our website at www.parkerpoe.com<http://www.parkerpoe.com> [1] -----Original Message----- From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto: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> [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<mailto: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:408.536.5336> (tel), 408.709.6162<tel:408.709.6162> (cell) jsevans@adobe.com<mailto:jsevans@adobe.com> www.adobe.com<http://www.adobe.com> [2] On 10/18/16, 6:18 AM, "George Kirikos" <icann@leap.com<mailto: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<tel:416-588-0269> http://www.leap.com/ On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 8:47 AM, J. Scott Evans <jsevans@adobe.com<mailto: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:408.536.5336> (tel), 408.709.6162 (cell) jsevans@adobe.com<mailto:jsevans@adobe.com> www.adobe.com<http://www.adobe.com> [2] On 10/18/16, 5:36 AM, "gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of George Kirikos" <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of icann@leap.com<mailto: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<tel:416-588-0269> http://www.leap.com/ On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 8:13 AM, J. Scott Evans <jsevans@adobe.com<mailto: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:408.536.5336> (tel), 408.709.6162 (cell) jsevans@adobe.com<mailto:jsevans@adobe.com> www.adobe.com<http://www.adobe.com> [2] On 10/18/16, 5:08 AM, "gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of George Kirikos" <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of icann@leap.com<mailto: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<tel:416-588-0269> http://www.leap.com/ On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 5:56 AM, J. Scott Evans <jsevans@adobe.com<mailto: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:408.536.5336> (tel), 408.709.6162 (cell) jsevans@adobe.com<mailto:jsevans@adobe.com> www.adobe.com<http://www.adobe.com> [2] From: <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of David Tait <david.tait@icann.org<mailto:david.tait@icann.org>> Date: Tuesday, October 18, 2016 at 2:36 AM To: "gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto:david.tait@icann.org>> Date: Friday, 14 October 2016 at 15:08 To: <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>> Cc: Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>> Date: Thursday, October 13, 2016 at 11:09 To: Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>>, "gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> T: +1.703.635.7514<tel:%2B1.703.635.7514> M: +1.202.549.5079<tel:%2B1.202.549.5079> @Jintlaw From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto: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]<https://community.icann.org/x/ugqsAw%5bcommunity.icann.org%5d>. 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<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org> Telephone: +1-603-5744889<tel:%2B1-603-5744889> ________________________________ <ACL> _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto: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] _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg Links: ------ [1] http://www.parkerpoe.com [2] http://www.adobe.com _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg

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<http://www.pir.org/> | Facebook<http://www.facebook.com/PIRegistry> | Twitter<http://twitter.com/PIRegistry> | Instagram<http://instagram.com/PIRegistry> | YouTube<http://www.youtube.com/PIRegistry> 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<mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto: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> [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<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>; Dorrain, Kristine <dorraink@amazon.com<mailto:dorraink@amazon.com>> Cc: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto: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<http://www.pir.org/> | Facebook<http://www.facebook.com/PIRegistry> | Twitter<http://twitter.com/PIRegistry> | Instagram<http://instagram.com/PIRegistry> | YouTube<http://www.youtube.com/PIRegistry> 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<mailto:dorraink@amazon.com>> Cc: Brian F. Cimbolic <BCimbolic@pir.org<mailto:BCimbolic@pir.org>>; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto: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> [mailto: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<mailto: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<tel:%2B1%20703%20889-5752>| Mobile: + 1 571 385-7871<tel:%2B%201%20571%20385-7871>| www.pir.org<http://www.pir.org/> | Facebook<http://www.facebook.com/PIRegistry> | Twitter<http://twitter.com/PIRegistry> | Instagram<http://instagram.com/PIRegistry> | YouTube<http://www.youtube.com/PIRegistry> 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> [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<mailto: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<tel:%2B46%280%298-4631010> Direct phone: +46(0)702-369360 E-mail: petter.rindforth@fenixlegal.eu<mailto:petter.rindforth@fenixlegal.eu> www.fenixlegal.eu<http://www.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<http://www.fenixlegal.eu> Thank you 19 oktober 2016 15:22:44 +02:00, skrev Steve Levy <slevy@accentlawgroup.com><mailto: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 Phone: +1-215-327-9094<tel:%2B1-215-327-9094> Email: slevy@AccentLawGroup.com<mailto:slevy@accentlawgroup.com> Website: www.AccentLawGroup.com<http://www.accentlawgroup.com/> LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/in/stevelevy43a/<http://www.linkedin.com/in/stevelevy43a/> On 10/19/16, 8:39 AM, "gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Paul Keating" <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of paul@law.es<mailto: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<mailto: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 T: +31.384530759<tel:%2B31.384530759> F: +31.384524734<tel:%2B31.384524734> U: www.realtimeregister.com<http://www.realtimeregister.com> E: legal@realtimeregister.com<mailto:legal@realtimeregister.com> 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<tel:%2B46%280%298-4631010> Direct phone: +46(0)702-369360 E-mail: petter.rindforth@fenixlegal.eu<mailto:petter.rindforth@fenixlegal.eu> www.fenixlegal.eu<http://www.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<http://www.fenixlegal.eu> Thank you 18 oktober 2016 15:45:45 +02:00, skrev Thomas, Christopher M. <christhomas@parkerpoe.com<mailto:christhomas@parkerpoe.com>>: 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<tel:919.835.4641> | Fax: 919.834.4564<tel:919.834.4564> Visit our website at www.parkerpoe.com<http://www.parkerpoe.com> [1] -----Original Message----- From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto: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> [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<mailto: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:408.536.5336> (tel), 408.709.6162<tel:408.709.6162> (cell) jsevans@adobe.com<mailto:jsevans@adobe.com> www.adobe.com<http://www.adobe.com> [2] On 10/18/16, 6:18 AM, "George Kirikos" <icann@leap.com<mailto: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<tel:416-588-0269> http://www.leap.com/ On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 8:47 AM, J. Scott Evans <jsevans@adobe.com<mailto: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:408.536.5336> (tel), 408.709.6162 (cell) jsevans@adobe.com<mailto:jsevans@adobe.com> www.adobe.com<http://www.adobe.com> [2] On 10/18/16, 5:36 AM, "gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of George Kirikos" <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of icann@leap.com<mailto: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<tel:416-588-0269> http://www.leap.com/ On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 8:13 AM, J. Scott Evans <jsevans@adobe.com<mailto: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:408.536.5336> (tel), 408.709.6162 (cell) jsevans@adobe.com<mailto:jsevans@adobe.com> www.adobe.com<http://www.adobe.com> [2] On 10/18/16, 5:08 AM, "gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of George Kirikos" <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of icann@leap.com<mailto: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<tel:416-588-0269> http://www.leap.com/ On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 5:56 AM, J. Scott Evans <jsevans@adobe.com<mailto: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:408.536.5336> (tel), 408.709.6162 (cell) jsevans@adobe.com<mailto:jsevans@adobe.com> www.adobe.com<http://www.adobe.com> [2] From: <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of David Tait <david.tait@icann.org<mailto:david.tait@icann.org>> Date: Tuesday, October 18, 2016 at 2:36 AM To: "gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto:david.tait@icann.org>> Date: Friday, 14 October 2016 at 15:08 To: <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>> Cc: Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>> Date: Thursday, October 13, 2016 at 11:09 To: Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>>, "gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> T: +1.703.635.7514<tel:%2B1.703.635.7514> M: +1.202.549.5079<tel:%2B1.202.549.5079> @Jintlaw From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto: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]<https://community.icann.org/x/ugqsAw%5bcommunity.icann.org%5d>. 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<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org> Telephone: +1-603-5744889<tel:%2B1-603-5744889> ________________________________ <ACL> _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto: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] _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg Links: ------ [1] http://www.parkerpoe.com [2] http://www.adobe.com _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg

Point noted Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/Cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Bret Fausett Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2016 5:44 PM To: 'Jeff Neuman'; 'Brian F. Cimbolic'; 'Greg Shatan'; 'Dorrain, Kristine' Cc: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] FOR REVIEW & DISCUSSION: Provider and Survey Responses on TM-PDDRP

Some who responded to the survey did point out issues they have with registries.

I saw that too, and I wish we had asked the question: “Did you contact the registry about the alleged bad faith pattern or practice and, if so, what was the response?” By its terms, the PDDRP has a requirement that complainants contact the registry at least 30 days in advance of filing the complaint to attempt to resolve the issue prior to invoking the PDDRP (7.2.3(d)). If issues are being resolved before complaints are filed, then you could view the PDDRP as a success, even if there are no filings, no decisions. Bret Bret Fausett General Counsel ____________________________ [Uniregistry]<http://www.uniregistry.link/> Uniregistry, Inc. 2161 San Joaquin Hlils Road Newport Beach, California 92660 Mobile +1 310 985 1351 Office +1 949 706 2300 x4201 bret@uniregistry.com<mailto:bret@uniregistry.com> ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com> Version: 2016.0.7797 / Virus Database: 4664/13233 - Release Date: 10/18/16 Internal Virus Database is out of date.

Good point Steve. ​Statton​ On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 6:22 AM, Steve Levy <slevy@accentlawgroup.com> wrote:

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 <slevy@accentlawgroup.com>

Website: www.AccentLawGroup.com <http://www.accentlawgroup.com/>

<http://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 T: +31.384530759 F: +31.384524734 U: www.realtimeregister.com E: legal@realtimeregister.com 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 www.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. <christhomas@parkerpoe.com>:

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 [1] -----Original Message----- From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org <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 <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 [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: 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 [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 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 [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 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 [2] 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 <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] _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg Links: ------ [1] http://www.parkerpoe.com [2] http://www.adobe.com _______________________________________________ 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

Hello everyone, If it will help, the survey included the following question: “Are you aware of the Trademark Post-Delegation Dispute Resolution Procedure that was developed as a rights protection mechanism for the 2012 New gTLD Program?” 14 respondents answered Yes, and 5 answered No. In addition, in public comments received to the 2015 Staff RPM Paper, while many comments were sent in with details and suggestions relating to the other RPMs, only 4 commenters provided feedback on the TM-PDDRP (as part of feedback on all the PDDRPs). All 4 commenters noted that no complaints had been filed to date, generally encouraged a review when more data is available, and - here’s something that may be of use to our WG at this stage of our work – 1 specifically suggested that the review be an iterative one (which is contemplated by our Charter). As such, staff would like to note that completing an initial review of the TM-PDDRP at this time does not mean the WG would not have the opportunity to return to the topic if and when new data is available, or other factors arise that would make sense for the iterative process. 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 From: <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Paul Keating <paul@law.es> Date: Wednesday, October 19, 2016 at 11:28 To: Steve Levy <slevy@accentlawgroup.com> Cc: "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 Agreed. That means we should have had some qualification questions up front? Sincerely, Paul Keating, Esq. On Oct 19, 2016, at 3:23 PM, Steve Levy <slevy@accentlawgroup.com<mailto:slevy@accentlawgroup.com>> wrote: 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 <7A4BE296-E433-40E1-BE3F-34A1A7AD2F08.png> 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<mailto:slevy@accentlawgroup.com> Website: www.AccentLawGroup.com[accentlawgroup.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.accentlawgroup.com_&...> [accentlawgroup.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.accentlawgroup.com_&d=DQMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=RClT72EXNzLKIQIk-GCIjAutUM4U4LLxa6saGhQkTvg&s=l5yNY_aflsnTTmIT8Fb9lK8u82GoohNA84FdfZGZH_g&e=>LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/in/stevelevy43a/[linkedin.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.linkedin.com_in_stev...> On 10/19/16, 8:39 AM, "gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Paul Keating" <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of paul@law.es<mailto: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<mailto: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 T: +31.384530759 F: +31.384524734 U: www.realtimeregister.com[realtimeregister.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.realtimeregister.com...> E: legal@realtimeregister.com<mailto:legal@realtimeregister.com> 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<mailto:petter.rindforth@fenixlegal.eu> www.fenixlegal.eu[fenixlegal.eu]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.fenixlegal.eu&d=DQMG...> 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[fenixlegal.eu]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.fenixlegal.eu&d=DQMG...> Thank you 18 oktober 2016 15:45:45 +02:00, skrev Thomas, Christopher M. <christhomas@parkerpoe.com<mailto:christhomas@parkerpoe.com>>: 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[parkerpoe.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.parkerpoe.com&d=DQMG...> [1] -----Original Message----- From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto: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> [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<mailto: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<mailto:jsevans@adobe.com> www.adobe.com[adobe.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adobe.com&d=DQMGaQ&c...> [2] On 10/18/16, 6:18 AM, "George Kirikos" <icann@leap.com<mailto: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/[leap.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.leap.com_&d=DQMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=RClT72EXNzLKIQIk-GCIjAutUM4U4LLxa6saGhQkTvg&s=AsNBGMmCr_6q4wD0KAYpZ_N-VFgrBMR_uEZbXYNIQyg&e=> On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 8:47 AM, J. Scott Evans <jsevans@adobe.com<mailto: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<mailto:jsevans@adobe.com> www.adobe.com[adobe.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adobe.com&d=DQMGaQ&c...> [2] On 10/18/16, 5:36 AM, "gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of George Kirikos" <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of icann@leap.com<mailto: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/[leap.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.leap.com_&d=DQMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=RClT72EXNzLKIQIk-GCIjAutUM4U4LLxa6saGhQkTvg&s=AsNBGMmCr_6q4wD0KAYpZ_N-VFgrBMR_uEZbXYNIQyg&e=> On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 8:13 AM, J. Scott Evans <jsevans@adobe.com<mailto: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<mailto:jsevans@adobe.com> www.adobe.com[adobe.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adobe.com&d=DQMGaQ&c...> [2] On 10/18/16, 5:08 AM, "gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of George Kirikos" <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of icann@leap.com<mailto: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/[surveymonkey.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.surveymonkey.com_mp_tour_skiplogic_&d=DQMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=RClT72EXNzLKIQIk-GCIjAutUM4U4LLxa6saGhQkTvg&s=P50tLCWA43oFnGJoX4Yev6bilCVIoG9LaKrr6xuvBZw&e=> 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/[leap.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.leap.com_&d=DQMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=RClT72EXNzLKIQIk-GCIjAutUM4U4LLxa6saGhQkTvg&s=AsNBGMmCr_6q4wD0KAYpZ_N-VFgrBMR_uEZbXYNIQyg&e=> On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 5:56 AM, J. Scott Evans <jsevans@adobe.com<mailto: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<mailto:jsevans@adobe.com> www.adobe.com[adobe.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adobe.com&d=DQMGaQ&c...> [2] From: <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of David Tait <david.tait@icann.org<mailto:david.tait@icann.org>> Date: Tuesday, October 18, 2016 at 2:36 AM To: "gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto:david.tait@icann.org>> Date: Friday, 14 October 2016 at 15:08 To: <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>> Cc: Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>> Date: Thursday, October 13, 2016 at 11:09 To: Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>>, "gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto: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> [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<mailto: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][community.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_ugqsAw-5Bcommunity.icann.org-5D&d=DQMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=RClT72EXNzLKIQIk-GCIjAutUM4U4LLxa6saGhQkTvg&s=iKx7imkeDx7NBHBZB0UX9nyAAPjikIAajMjb_2uysnw&e=>. 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<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org> Telephone: +1-603-5744889 ________________________________ <ACL> _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto: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] _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg Links: ------ [1] http://www.parkerpoe.com[parkerpoe.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.parkerpoe.com&d=DQMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=RClT72EXNzLKIQIk-GCIjAutUM4U4LLxa6saGhQkTvg&s=1a9jvy1AwdENrA3EZJYO6f_AzIGhID7D_uIymSTnGAw&e=> [2] http://www.adobe.com[adobe.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adobe.com&d=DQMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=RClT72EXNzLKIQIk-GCIjAutUM4U4LLxa6saGhQkTvg&s=-ACiXVB0A3OZcPm0iZ-6tHsEAfelFOLbnk7spc4HmQw&e=> _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg

Apologies, and thanks for the catch, George – the numbers should read 12 for Yes (aware of TM-PDDRP) and 4 for No (not aware). FYI of the 4 that indicated No, 2 were registrars, 1 IPC and 1 ccNSO. The survey was also intended for distribution via the SO/AC/GNSO Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies. On George’s other question about ensuring wider participation, especially from non-WG and “regular” community participants, there is a (newish) process in place for WGs to seek out data, including from third party sources. The request goes to the GNSO Council via a form to be filled out – in the form, the requestor is asked to put in its data requirements, suggest some sources, and provide an educated estimate on the resources and budget that may be required to get the data in question. To my knowledge, this process (which was adopted by the GNSO Council in 2015) has not yet been used, but may be something to consider for future data gathering exercises where we envisage an important need to go beyond “internal” sources (e.g. GDD, Compliance, existing Stakeholder Groups/Constituencies/SO/ACs) and ICANN contractors and providers (e.g. TMCH, Analysis Group, the various dispute resolution service providers). Do note, however, that where there is likely to be budget implications, this could be a factor in deciding whether to grant the request and its final scope. Cheers Mary On 10/19/16, 12:11, "gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org on behalf of George Kirikos" <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org on behalf of icann@leap.com> wrote: Hello, On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 11:54 AM, Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org> wrote: > If it will help, the survey included the following question: “Are you aware > of the Trademark Post-Delegation Dispute Resolution Procedure that was > developed as a rights protection mechanism for the 2012 New gTLD Program?” > 14 respondents answered Yes, and 5 answered No. There were only 16 survey responses, so that's been tabulated incorrectly (14 + 5 = 19, which doesn't equal 16) or some folks voted twice, or ... ? Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.leap.com_&d=DQIGaQ&c... _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg

Dear J. Scott and all: I would also support attempting to obtain additional input on the survey questions by re-circulating. When the survey was first circulated I think there may have been some miscommunication or lack of clear communication as to when prospective survey respondents must submit responses before the survey closed. Given that there are still other open areas in connection with the PDDRP, I don't see any harm in giving an extended opportunity for additional input on this. With respect to the responses that have been collected to date, I agree that despite the relatively small sample size, this Working Group should not dismiss this input out of hand. This threatens the credibility of our work. We should spend the time to thoroughly review and analyze the input and discuss whether it makes sense to revisit preliminary conclusions regarding the PDDRP. I am not suggesting we will ultimately change course in terms of the conclusions, but believe we should be deliberate in our approach. Best regards, Brian Brian J. Winterfeldt Co-Head of Global Brand Management and Internet Practice Mayer Brown LLP -----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 9:22 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 https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=www.adobe.com&data=01%7C0... 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:

https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org...

"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 https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.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 https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=www.adobe.com&data=01%7C0...

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 https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.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 https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=www.adobe.com&data=01%7C0...

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://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.surveym...

Given the above, I'd place little weight on the results, either "for" something or "against" something.

Sincerely,

George Kirikos 416-588-0269 https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.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

https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=www.adobe.com&data=01%7C0...

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://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fcommunity.i...].

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://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.or...

---

gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.or...

_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.or...

_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.or... __________________________________________________________________________ This email and any files transmitted with it are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail.

Dear All I agree with Brian's suggested approach below. In the interests of credibility of the working group review I think that it is preferable to be seen to have given an extended opportunity for input. Secondly, I see no choice but to undertake an appropriate review before finalising conclusions, as pointed out by Brian. Kind regards Alistair Payne Matheson 70 Sir John Rogerson's Quay Dublin 2 D: +353 1 232 2342 T: +353 1 232 2000 F: +353 1 232 3333 E: alistair.payne@matheson.com W: www.matheson.com -----Original Message----- From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Winterfeldt, Brian J. Sent: 18 October 2016 14:43 To: 'J. Scott Evans' Cc: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] FOR REVIEW & DISCUSSION: Provider and Survey Responses on TM-PDDRP Dear J. Scott and all: I would also support attempting to obtain additional input on the survey questions by re-circulating. When the survey was first circulated I think there may have been some miscommunication or lack of clear communication as to when prospective survey respondents must submit responses before the survey closed. Given that there are still other open areas in connection with the PDDRP, I don't see any harm in giving an extended opportunity for additional input on this. With respect to the responses that have been collected to date, I agree that despite the relatively small sample size, this Working Group should not dismiss this input out of hand. This threatens the credibility of our work. We should spend the time to thoroughly review and analyze the input and discuss whether it makes sense to revisit preliminary conclusions regarding the PDDRP. I am not suggesting we will ultimately change course in terms of the conclusions, but believe we should be deliberate in our approach. Best regards, Brian Brian J. Winterfeldt Co-Head of Global Brand Management and Internet Practice Mayer Brown LLP -----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 9:22 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 https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=www.adobe.com&data=01%7C0... 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:

https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org...

"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 https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.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 https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=www.adobe.com&data=01%7C0...

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 https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.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 https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=www.adobe.com&data=01%7C0...

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://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.surveym...

Given the above, I'd place little weight on the results, either "for" something or "against" something.

Sincerely,

George Kirikos 416-588-0269 https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.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

https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=www.adobe.com&data=01%7C0...

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://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fcommunity.i...].

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://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.or...

---

gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.or...

_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.or...

_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.or... __________________________________________________________________________ This email and any files transmitted with it are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg Ireland’s most innovative law firm in dispute resolution - Financial Times 2014 Matheson is the only Irish law firm commended by the Financial Times for innovation in corporate law, finance law, dispute resolution and corporate strategy. Financial Times 2012-2014 ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ This e-mail is confidential. If you receive it in error, please advise by return e-mail and delete it. Thank you for your co-operation. Matheson 70 Sir John Rogerson's Quay, Dublin 2, Ireland. Tel: +353 1 232 2000 Fax: +353 1 232 3333 Email: postmaster@matheson.com Web: www.matheson.com _______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Edward: Statistically, yes, apparently. I did not do the math. We got sixteen responses. That is our pool. The majority of people who answered Q9 and Q10 say the PDDRP doesn’t work in its current form and needs to be revised. Now, if the WG wants to throw out this input, then we’ll have to deal with the consequences. However, I repeatedly see this type of reaction in ICANN-land. A WG seeks input. Input is historically low. A WG chooses to ignore the input b/c the input is low and the majority in the WG don’t like the input received. I think such stereotypical behavior will mare our work. However, this is a consensus-based process. I can always right a minority report if I strongly feel we make the wrong decision. 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<mailto:jsevans@adobe.com> www.adobe.com From: Edward Morris <egmorris1@toast.net<mailto:egmorris1@toast.net>> Reply-To: "egmorris1@toast.net<mailto:egmorris1@toast.net>" <egmorris1@toast.net<mailto:egmorris1@toast.net>> Date: Tuesday, October 18, 2016 at 5:55 AM To: David Tait <david.tait@icann.org<mailto:david.tait@icann.org>>, "gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>>, "J. Scott Evans" <jsevans@adobe.com<mailto:jsevans@adobe.com>> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] FOR REVIEW & DISCUSSION: Provider and Survey Responses on TM-PDDRP Five out of sixteen is 'overwhelming'? Really? I can only imagine the adjective that would have been used if anything close to a majority supported this position. ________________________________ From: "J. Scott Evans" <jsevans@adobe.com<mailto:jsevans@adobe.com>> Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2016 10:56 AM To: "David Tait" <david.tait@icann.org<mailto:david.tait@icann.org>>, "gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] FOR REVIEW & DISCUSSION: Provider and Survey Responses on TM-PDDRP 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<mailto:jsevans@adobe.com> www.adobe.com From: <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of David Tait <david.tait@icann.org<mailto:david.tait@icann.org>> Date: Tuesday, October 18, 2016 at 2:36 AM To: "gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto:david.tait@icann.org>> Date: Friday, 14 October 2016 at 15:08 To: <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>> Cc: Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>> Date: Thursday, October 13, 2016 at 11:09 To: Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>>, "gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto: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> [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<mailto: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]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_ugqsAw&d=DQMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=fKOgiflD30bkIzyxUtANExnoH9To3V0EfY_cONt_W5I&s=riEV_p_6r55Kw1xAu7skaxDcWAZWvtnO2amntV8PRw4&e=>. 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<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org> Telephone: +1-603-5744889 ________________________________ <ACL>