Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Directly from INTA's website: What the TTAB has to say about sample size
Hi Iain, On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 5:48 AM, CONNOR Iain <Iain.Connor@pinsentmasons.com> wrote:
George – on the basis of your acceptance “No one is denying those 33 members of INTA who answered the survey had those experiences or opinions.” it is inappropriate for you to persist with your previous suggestion that this evidence should be ignored.
Nice try, but what you left out of your partial quote was the "meat", namely: "What *is* in dispute is whether one should extract any truth about those experiences when talking about the larger populations, namely (1) all INTA members, and (b) all TM holders. Because of the issues with the study, it would not be credible to do so." Which is entirely consistent with what I said, and will persist in saying, namely that the proffered "evidence" has no weight (and should be ignored). The survey is weaker than "a set of anecdotes", weaker than "raised a question as to the overall validity of the survey results", and objectively into the realm of a bad survey for all the reasons previously stated (""However, if the sample of respondents is not representative of the universe from which it was selected, it will be accorded little weight" AND the issues of size, combined). One has to separate advocacy on this group from objective and scientific review. I'm pretty confident that if folks here saw that kind of "evidence" offered by an opponent in a courtroom or tribunal, they'd be making the identical arguments that I am -- and those would be the winning arguments, as they're backed by the long history of science/math/statistics. All the "pounding on the table" in the world won't turn those 33 respondents into the 300+ that might have made them statistically significant, nor fix the fact that they were not a representative sample of the INTA membership, nor the broader group of TM holders worldwide. Paul Keating later wrote: "If it had been issued by any other entity i am sure you would have laughed it out of the room" I'm confident and agree that it would indeed have been the source of great laughter (or in my case, from someone with a background in quantitative finance/math/econometrics, horror at the abuse of statistics/math, followed by laughter). Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
I'm sure many folks are familiar with the concept of "confirmation bias": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias Those who want to give weight to the INTA study, despite its statistical invalidity, appear to me to be suffering from that confirmation bias, as it's a study that happens to confirm or coincide with their prior beliefs. As a group, we need to *overcome* those biases, and deal with evidence in a neutral, objective and scientific manner, lest those biases steer us on the wrong course. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
I continue to read these statistics lessons from George, Volker, and Paul K. with some amusement. We are definitely in "the lady doth protest too much" territory here. We get it. You don't like the survey or the information it conveys. It doesn't fit your narrative or help your goals. But, it's not like our resident statistical experts have submitted any surveys of their own - scientifically perfect or otherwise - to back up their opinions. If the INTA survey conducted by Nielson, as Paul K. suggests, is worthy of being "laughed out of the room" where does that leave the personal opinions of those who didn't bother with producing a survey at all? I suppose that would be whatever is worse than being laughed out of a room... So folks, can we move off the unrequested, unhelpful opinions about statistics (which are interestingly not backed up by surveys to validate their accuracy which I find ironic) and get on with dealing with the giant workload before us? We can't keep wasting time on this circular stuff. We need to get underway or else risk falling behind SubPro and get the full ire of the community directed at us. Thanks so much! Best, Paul -----Original Message----- From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of George Kirikos Sent: Friday, September 01, 2017 5:44 AM To: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Directly from INTA's website: What the TTAB has to say about sample size I'm sure many folks are familiar with the concept of "confirmation bias": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias Those who want to give weight to the INTA study, despite its statistical invalidity, appear to me to be suffering from that confirmation bias, as it's a study that happens to confirm or coincide with their prior beliefs. As a group, we need to *overcome* those biases, and deal with evidence in a neutral, objective and scientific manner, lest those biases steer us on the wrong course. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg ________________________________ The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. If this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author. Any tax advice contained in this email was not intended to be used, and cannot be used, by you (or any other taxpayer) to avoid penalties under applicable tax laws and regulations.
Hi folks, A reply to both Paul McGrady and Kiran's last 2 emails, in a single email: 1. Paul McGrady wrote: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2017-September/002449.html Essentially, Paul M. appears to believe that offering up a competing survey of one's own is a prerequisite to making a valuable contribution to this PDP. That's not correct. It is perfectly legitimate to point out statistical reality about a bad survey, without offering up a competing one. Furthermore, strong input can be made WITHOUT any surveys whatsoever to back up one's input: "But, it's not like our resident statistical experts have submitted any surveys of their own - scientifically perfect or otherwise - to back up their opinions." was already answered before, see: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2017-August/002433.html But, let me demonstrate this again for you, so you can fully understand, with two concrete examples. (a) When I helped kill the .biz/info/org contract terms that would have allowed tiered/differential pricing: http://www.circleid.com/posts/icann_tiered_pricing_tld_biz_info_org_domain/ no "surveys" were required to "back up" my opinion --- it was my deep and original thinking/analysis that did it. No survey required, but better analysis of what was available to everyone. (b) exact same superior analysis for killing off the proposed "Expedited Transfer Reversal Policy" (ETRP) from the IRTP-B PDP as discussed previously at: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2017-August/002318.html "So folks, can we move off the unrequested, unhelpful opinions about statistics (which are interestingly not backed up by surveys to validate their accuracy which I find ironic) and get on with dealing with the giant workload before us?" No. It's these "unrequested" opinions that are actually the helpful ones, because they help expose the flaws in what was submitted as evidence in this PDP, and thus the weight that should be accorded the INTA survey (namely zero). This is the "superior analysis" that some in this PDP don't appear to like, and want to stifle and dismiss as "unhelpful". It's very helpful, to anyone who wants to do a scientific, neutral and objective analysis in this PDP. 2. Kiran wrote: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2017-September/002450.html Actually, it's *not* 33 company's "input into the process", i.e. the "anecdotal evidence" that some wanted to "degrade" the survey into, to still retain some weight in this PDP. My previous email which started this thread talked about that, from the TTAB analysis. *If* it was distinct input such as: (a) IBM submitted the first anecdote (with all their individual responses). (b) Disney submitted the second anecdote. and so on, with 33 separate and concrete anecdotes, we might actually consider that anecdotal evidence of some kind, and weight it accordingly. But, that's *not* what we received at all. The act of *aggregation* and anonymization of those 33 responses, in order to attempt to present it as a **representative** survey (representative of typical INTA companies, or TM holders at large, which is ultimately the goal) means that all of the individual input (33 separate anecdotes) was essentially destroyed. We lost those 33 anecdotes, and they were instead transformed into and replaced with various "averages". Since those "averages" are meaningless statistically (as discussed at length), in the end we're left with nothing at all. If our group wants to do a proper survey, by all means lets do it! Ask those exact same questions that INTA asked, but do it properly (e.g. randomized from the USPTO or other national databases, and in sufficient quantity to be statistically sound). Or ask even better questions, that are more relevant to our work. Folks like Paul Keating and myself and others don't fear more data that is scientifically valid (we've asked for data like the TMCH materials, more from The Analysis Group, etc. but been denied or been waiting forever for it). And, we are perfectly within our rights as contributing members to this PDP to insist that data that is gathered in our work meet high standards, or be sent to the trash can. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
George, once again you leave me befuddled. You are insisting that the INTA survey data be up to your high standards (which standards you assert through vague references to your personal opinions about statistical theory but no citations to any recognized authority) or else the survey be "sent to the trashcan", while at the same time insisting that your opinions - which you admit have no surveys attached to them at all- be given full weight. You really do need to make up your mind about the importance of surveys in order to support positions in this WG. You can't have it both ways. Sent from my iPhone
On Sep 1, 2017, at 6:24 PM, George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote:
Hi folks,
A reply to both Paul McGrady and Kiran's last 2 emails, in a single email:
1. Paul McGrady wrote:
http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2017-September/002449.html
Essentially, Paul M. appears to believe that offering up a competing survey of one's own is a prerequisite to making a valuable contribution to this PDP. That's not correct. It is perfectly legitimate to point out statistical reality about a bad survey, without offering up a competing one. Furthermore, strong input can be made WITHOUT any surveys whatsoever to back up one's input:
"But, it's not like our resident statistical experts have submitted any surveys of their own - scientifically perfect or otherwise - to back up their opinions."
was already answered before, see:
http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2017-August/002433.html
But, let me demonstrate this again for you, so you can fully understand, with two concrete examples.
(a) When I helped kill the .biz/info/org contract terms that would have allowed tiered/differential pricing:
http://www.circleid.com/posts/icann_tiered_pricing_tld_biz_info_org_domain/
no "surveys" were required to "back up" my opinion --- it was my deep and original thinking/analysis that did it. No survey required, but better analysis of what was available to everyone.
(b) exact same superior analysis for killing off the proposed "Expedited Transfer Reversal Policy" (ETRP) from the IRTP-B PDP as discussed previously at:
http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2017-August/002318.html
"So folks, can we move off the unrequested, unhelpful opinions about statistics (which are interestingly not backed up by surveys to validate their accuracy which I find ironic) and get on with dealing with the giant workload before us?"
No. It's these "unrequested" opinions that are actually the helpful ones, because they help expose the flaws in what was submitted as evidence in this PDP, and thus the weight that should be accorded the INTA survey (namely zero).
This is the "superior analysis" that some in this PDP don't appear to like, and want to stifle and dismiss as "unhelpful". It's very helpful, to anyone who wants to do a scientific, neutral and objective analysis in this PDP.
2. Kiran wrote: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2017-September/002450.html
Actually, it's *not* 33 company's "input into the process", i.e. the "anecdotal evidence" that some wanted to "degrade" the survey into, to still retain some weight in this PDP. My previous email which started this thread talked about that, from the TTAB analysis.
*If* it was distinct input such as:
(a) IBM submitted the first anecdote (with all their individual responses). (b) Disney submitted the second anecdote.
and so on, with 33 separate and concrete anecdotes, we might actually consider that anecdotal evidence of some kind, and weight it accordingly. But, that's *not* what we received at all.
The act of *aggregation* and anonymization of those 33 responses, in order to attempt to present it as a **representative** survey (representative of typical INTA companies, or TM holders at large, which is ultimately the goal) means that all of the individual input (33 separate anecdotes) was essentially destroyed.
We lost those 33 anecdotes, and they were instead transformed into and replaced with various "averages". Since those "averages" are meaningless statistically (as discussed at length), in the end we're left with nothing at all.
If our group wants to do a proper survey, by all means lets do it! Ask those exact same questions that INTA asked, but do it properly (e.g. randomized from the USPTO or other national databases, and in sufficient quantity to be statistically sound). Or ask even better questions, that are more relevant to our work.
Folks like Paul Keating and myself and others don't fear more data that is scientifically valid (we've asked for data like the TMCH materials, more from The Analysis Group, etc. but been denied or been waiting forever for it). And, we are perfectly within our rights as contributing members to this PDP to insist that data that is gathered in our work meet high standards, or be sent to the trash can.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
________________________________ The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. If this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author. Any tax advice contained in this email was not intended to be used, and cannot be used, by you (or any other taxpayer) to avoid penalties under applicable tax laws and regulations.
Hi Paul, On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 8:57 PM, icannlists <icannlists@winston.com> wrote:
George, once again you leave me befuddled. You are insisting that the INTA survey data be up to your high standards (which standards you assert through vague references to your personal opinions about statistical theory but no citations to any recognized authority) or else the survey be "sent to the trashcan", while at the same time insisting that your opinions - which you admit have no surveys attached to them at all- be given full weight. You really do need to make up your mind about the importance of surveys in order to support positions in this WG. You can't have it both ways.
I didn't rely *just* on my "personal opinions" about statistical theory. Go read the first post of this thread again, or read the subject of all the emails in this thread: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2017-August/002438.html My citation is published work from INTA's own journal! That should be enough. If you want more, go to Google and search for articles on survey size. Obviously the judges in the TTAB cases (all public and cited in the article) would have had that basic statistics knowledge/evidence/authorities when they made their rulings/conclusion. Go and download the cited cases, and read them at your leisure. Or are you asserting that INTA made a mistake when they allowed that article talking about sample size to be included in their very own journal? In the first email of the prior thread: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2017-August/002408.html Confidence interval calculations could be done easily from the supplied links. They're standard calculations (Kurt even calculated the 18% figure in his followup email). Raise your hand if you've been published in a peer-reviewed journal, like I have, in relation to statistics/econometrics/quantitative finance? http://www-2.rotman.utoronto.ca/~kan/research.htm http://www-2.rotman.utoronto.ca/~kan/papers/mom1.pdf http://www.powerfinance.com/convexity/ [no "stats" in this one, but it will give you a sense of the depth of my math knowledge; my company does own Math.com, remember?] and completed Ph.D. level courses in those areas? (I never finished my dissertation, as I got too distracted with making money outside academia) That doesn't make me an "authority" in statistics, but anyone with an iota of statistics education and objectivity should be able to see through this INTA study. I'm sure the lawyers in those TTAB cases argued long and hard, maybe even paying "experts" or "authorities" to attempt to assert that their small surveys had validity -- they lost. I'm not "trying to have it both ways". If someone uses a survey as the only foundation that supports their position -- it better be a statistically valid survey, if that's all they are relying upon to support their position. However, some positions (depending on the nature of the question at hand) don't require a "survey" at all, to be a positive contribution. I already gave 2 examples in the prior email (the ETRP, and the tiered pricing issue). In another PDP (the IGO one), I didn't need to "take a survey" to debunk the position that some IGOs were taking, that they were unable to use the UDRP (because of the mutual jurisdiction clause, which could affect their claimed immunity). Do you know what won the day? Going out and doing research, and actually finding examples of UDRPs where IGOs expressly participated! Same for their claimed "inability to waive immunity" -- it's kind of funny how that argument was debunked, after a little bit of research brought to light examples of the World Bank (an IGO) filing lawsuits in US court. I could go on, and on, but if you want other examples, feel free to email me outside this list. One doesn't need to "take a survey" to debunk the INTA study, because of its inherent flaws. Nor is one required to support my position on that topic. All of math, statistics, and INTA's own publication in its journal (which I expressly cited) about survey size support that position. What scientific citations have you introduced that support your strong belief that this INTA study should be given any weight, other than the study being supportive of your own position? Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
Thanks George. Your latest email is more of the same. I understand why you were steadfastly refusing to see the problem with insisting on one level of proof for the side you don't like while giving a pass to the other side that you do like. You strike me as someone who will always have the last word, so I will let you have it and will very likely not respond to your next missive. However, please do not interpret my silence as assent. Sent from my iPhone
On Sep 1, 2017, at 8:46 PM, George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote:
Hi Paul,
On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 8:57 PM, icannlists <icannlists@winston.com> wrote: George, once again you leave me befuddled. You are insisting that the INTA survey data be up to your high standards (which standards you assert through vague references to your personal opinions about statistical theory but no citations to any recognized authority) or else the survey be "sent to the trashcan", while at the same time insisting that your opinions - which you admit have no surveys attached to them at all- be given full weight. You really do need to make up your mind about the importance of surveys in order to support positions in this WG. You can't have it both ways.
I didn't rely *just* on my "personal opinions" about statistical theory. Go read the first post of this thread again, or read the subject of all the emails in this thread:
http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2017-August/002438.html
My citation is published work from INTA's own journal! That should be enough. If you want more, go to Google and search for articles on survey size. Obviously the judges in the TTAB cases (all public and cited in the article) would have had that basic statistics knowledge/evidence/authorities when they made their rulings/conclusion. Go and download the cited cases, and read them at your leisure.
Or are you asserting that INTA made a mistake when they allowed that article talking about sample size to be included in their very own journal?
In the first email of the prior thread:
http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2017-August/002408.html
Confidence interval calculations could be done easily from the supplied links. They're standard calculations (Kurt even calculated the 18% figure in his followup email).
Raise your hand if you've been published in a peer-reviewed journal, like I have, in relation to statistics/econometrics/quantitative finance?
http://www-2.rotman.utoronto.ca/~kan/research.htm http://www-2.rotman.utoronto.ca/~kan/papers/mom1.pdf http://www.powerfinance.com/convexity/ [no "stats" in this one, but it will give you a sense of the depth of my math knowledge; my company does own Math.com, remember?]
and completed Ph.D. level courses in those areas? (I never finished my dissertation, as I got too distracted with making money outside academia)
That doesn't make me an "authority" in statistics, but anyone with an iota of statistics education and objectivity should be able to see through this INTA study. I'm sure the lawyers in those TTAB cases argued long and hard, maybe even paying "experts" or "authorities" to attempt to assert that their small surveys had validity -- they lost.
I'm not "trying to have it both ways". If someone uses a survey as the only foundation that supports their position -- it better be a statistically valid survey, if that's all they are relying upon to support their position.
However, some positions (depending on the nature of the question at hand) don't require a "survey" at all, to be a positive contribution. I already gave 2 examples in the prior email (the ETRP, and the tiered pricing issue).
In another PDP (the IGO one), I didn't need to "take a survey" to debunk the position that some IGOs were taking, that they were unable to use the UDRP (because of the mutual jurisdiction clause, which could affect their claimed immunity). Do you know what won the day? Going out and doing research, and actually finding examples of UDRPs where IGOs expressly participated! Same for their claimed "inability to waive immunity" -- it's kind of funny how that argument was debunked, after a little bit of research brought to light examples of the World Bank (an IGO) filing lawsuits in US court. I could go on, and on, but if you want other examples, feel free to email me outside this list.
One doesn't need to "take a survey" to debunk the INTA study, because of its inherent flaws. Nor is one required to support my position on that topic. All of math, statistics, and INTA's own publication in its journal (which I expressly cited) about survey size support that position.
What scientific citations have you introduced that support your strong belief that this INTA study should be given any weight, other than the study being supportive of your own position?
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
________________________________ The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. If this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author. Any tax advice contained in this email was not intended to be used, and cannot be used, by you (or any other taxpayer) to avoid penalties under applicable tax laws and regulations.
George, I've been an IPC member for over ten years, and I don't believe any of the positions the IPC has ever advanced relies on, or is based upon, this INTA survey. As we know, INTA has legitimate concerns on behalf of the organizations and consumers they serve, and stepped up to do this work because no else was willing or able, including ICANN who has responsibility over this multi-year, multi-million dollar initiative. Let's be respectful for what INTA accomplished - which is historic. Personally, I thought it was interesting to read the survey. Lori expressed it is an ongoing learning effort, and future studies will be more refined and tailored based on past experiences. Your input is helpful to that process, as I understand you have already provided Lori with a list of questions. If someone wants to raise the survey data during our deliberations, let's take it up at that point as a group. Hopefully, ICANN will start taking on the burden of measuring the full extent of the social costs (and benefits) generated from their experiment - perhaps with some of the quarter of a billion dollars generated from auctions. Only time will tell. Best, Claudio On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 9:46 PM George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote:
Hi Paul,
On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 8:57 PM, icannlists <icannlists@winston.com> wrote:
George, once again you leave me befuddled. You are insisting that the INTA survey data be up to your high standards (which standards you assert through vague references to your personal opinions about statistical theory but no citations to any recognized authority) or else the survey be "sent to the trashcan", while at the same time insisting that your opinions - which you admit have no surveys attached to them at all- be given full weight. You really do need to make up your mind about the importance of surveys in order to support positions in this WG. You can't have it both ways.
I didn't rely *just* on my "personal opinions" about statistical theory. Go read the first post of this thread again, or read the subject of all the emails in this thread:
http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2017-August/002438.html
My citation is published work from INTA's own journal! That should be enough. If you want more, go to Google and search for articles on survey size. Obviously the judges in the TTAB cases (all public and cited in the article) would have had that basic statistics knowledge/evidence/authorities when they made their rulings/conclusion. Go and download the cited cases, and read them at your leisure.
Or are you asserting that INTA made a mistake when they allowed that article talking about sample size to be included in their very own journal?
In the first email of the prior thread:
http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2017-August/002408.html
Confidence interval calculations could be done easily from the supplied links. They're standard calculations (Kurt even calculated the 18% figure in his followup email).
Raise your hand if you've been published in a peer-reviewed journal, like I have, in relation to statistics/econometrics/quantitative finance?
http://www-2.rotman.utoronto.ca/~kan/research.htm http://www-2.rotman.utoronto.ca/~kan/papers/mom1.pdf http://www.powerfinance.com/convexity/ [no "stats" in this one, but it will give you a sense of the depth of my math knowledge; my company does own Math.com, remember?]
and completed Ph.D. level courses in those areas? (I never finished my dissertation, as I got too distracted with making money outside academia)
That doesn't make me an "authority" in statistics, but anyone with an iota of statistics education and objectivity should be able to see through this INTA study. I'm sure the lawyers in those TTAB cases argued long and hard, maybe even paying "experts" or "authorities" to attempt to assert that their small surveys had validity -- they lost.
I'm not "trying to have it both ways". If someone uses a survey as the only foundation that supports their position -- it better be a statistically valid survey, if that's all they are relying upon to support their position.
However, some positions (depending on the nature of the question at hand) don't require a "survey" at all, to be a positive contribution. I already gave 2 examples in the prior email (the ETRP, and the tiered pricing issue).
In another PDP (the IGO one), I didn't need to "take a survey" to debunk the position that some IGOs were taking, that they were unable to use the UDRP (because of the mutual jurisdiction clause, which could affect their claimed immunity). Do you know what won the day? Going out and doing research, and actually finding examples of UDRPs where IGOs expressly participated! Same for their claimed "inability to waive immunity" -- it's kind of funny how that argument was debunked, after a little bit of research brought to light examples of the World Bank (an IGO) filing lawsuits in US court. I could go on, and on, but if you want other examples, feel free to email me outside this list.
One doesn't need to "take a survey" to debunk the INTA study, because of its inherent flaws. Nor is one required to support my position on that topic. All of math, statistics, and INTA's own publication in its journal (which I expressly cited) about survey size support that position.
What scientific citations have you introduced that support your strong belief that this INTA study should be given any weight, other than the study being supportive of your own position?
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
George, I am not seeking a reaction, but would like to nevertheless clarify/respond to an assertion you make in the context of the IGO curative rights WG, namely: "In another PDP (the IGO one), I didn't need to "take a survey" to debunk the position that some IGOs were taking, that they were unable to use the UDRP (because of the mutual jurisdiction clause, which could affect their claimed immunity). Do you know what won the day? Going out and doing research, and actually finding examples of UDRPs where IGOs expressly participated! Same for their claimed "inability to waive immunity" -- it's kind of funny how that argument was debunked, after a little bit of research brought to light examples of the World Bank (an IGO) filing lawsuits in US court. I could go on, and on, but if you want other examples, feel free to email me outside this list." You have not debunked anything. Indeed, IGOs, in responding to a request from the WG on which only you and a mere handful of others have participated (whether such participation by a few individuals with clear agendas represents a sound multistakeholder model is an altogether separate question) stated: "Submission to the UDRP and URS as currently drafted would necessitate waiving IGOs’ immunity from legal process, which would involve a specific decision taken at the highest levels of our governance structures." In other words, IGOs have not said they are categorically unable to use the UDRP, but that there are serious legal and institutional hurdles to doing so (at the least, sign off by the Office of Legal Counsel and Director General). Moreover, your research unearthing one or two instances in almost 20 years of the UDRP where one or two IGOs have opted to face those legal and institutional hurdles does not "debunk" the clear and unchanged position of IGOs. In that WG, when presented with evidence of abuse of IGO identities (there: on the heels of the Ebola crisis), rather than positively look for a solution that met the expressed needs of IGOs (not to mention GAC Advice), your WG has instead opted to "know better" and disregard legitimate concerns raised by IGOs -- there is nothing "funny" about this. Thank you for noting, and again, I am not looking for a reaction. Brian
Brian, The submission to the working group from WIPO citing the Ebola examples was very poor. It would be impossible to use UDRP or URS in any form to solve the cited examples since they did not involve the registration of an infringing domain. With respect to the mutual jurisdiction clause it should be noted it is a benefit rather than a concession. Absent UDRP an IGO would be required to waive not only jurisdictional immunity but also immunity from execution. Best regards, Paul On Sat, Sep 2, 2017 at 11:43 AM, Beckham, Brian <brian.beckham@wipo.int> wrote:
George,
I am not seeking a reaction, but would like to nevertheless clarify/respond to an assertion you make in the context of the IGO curative rights WG, namely:
"In another PDP (the IGO one), I didn't need to "take a survey" to debunk the position that some IGOs were taking, that they were unable to use the UDRP (because of the mutual jurisdiction clause, which could affect their claimed immunity). Do you know what won the day? Going out and doing research, and actually finding examples of UDRPs where IGOs expressly participated! Same for their claimed "inability to waive immunity" -- it's kind of funny how that argument was debunked, after a little bit of research brought to light examples of the World Bank (an IGO) filing lawsuits in US court. I could go on, and on, but if you want other examples, feel free to email me outside this list."
You have not debunked anything.
Indeed, IGOs, in responding to a request from the WG on which only you and a mere handful of others have participated (whether such participation by a few individuals with clear agendas represents a sound multistakeholder model is an altogether separate question) stated:
"Submission to the UDRP and URS as currently drafted would necessitate waiving IGOs’ immunity from legal process, which would involve a specific decision taken at the highest levels of our governance structures."
In other words, IGOs have not said they are categorically unable to use the UDRP, but that there are serious legal and institutional hurdles to doing so (at the least, sign off by the Office of Legal Counsel and Director General).
Moreover, your research unearthing one or two instances in almost 20 years of the UDRP where one or two IGOs have opted to face those legal and institutional hurdles does not "debunk" the clear and unchanged position of IGOs.
In that WG, when presented with evidence of abuse of IGO identities (there: on the heels of the Ebola crisis), rather than positively look for a solution that met the expressed needs of IGOs (not to mention GAC Advice), your WG has instead opted to "know better" and disregard legitimate concerns raised by IGOs -- there is nothing "funny" about this.
Thank you for noting, and again, I am not looking for a reaction.
Brian
_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
Hi Brian, George & All, I definitely don’t want to start a discussion here on what’s going on in another WG (everybody that are interested in that topic are welcome to join that WG). Just wanted to clarify that the IGO-INGO Access to Curative Rights Protection Mechanisms WG is in the final stage of working with a solution that hopefully will solve the immunity question and still offering both parties involved a clear and neutral dispute resolution process, without the need to change (or at least with no significant changes) of the current UDRP/URS. Our first WG meeting was for more than three years ago, so make sure that we have deeply considered all aspects, comments and proposals from all groups of interest, with a special view on how IGO’s can use URS/UDRP. As said, this topic is worked with in another WG and I gladly discuss it further in that WG. Hopefully, our solution will not mean that we give this WG a number of additional topics/open questions once it is time to work generally with the URS and in Step2 the UDRP. Best, Petter Co-Chair IGO-INGO Access to Curative Rights Protection Mechanisms WG -- 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 2 september 2017 12:43:44 +02:00, skrev Beckham, Brian <brian.beckham@wipo.int>:
George,
I am not seeking a reaction, but would like to nevertheless clarify/respond to an assertion you make in the context of the IGO curative rights WG, namely:
"In another PDP (the IGO one), I didn't need to "take a survey" to debunk the position that some IGOs were taking, that they were unable to use the UDRP (because of the mutual jurisdiction clause, which could affect their claimed immunity). Do you know what won the day? Going out and doing research, and actually finding examples of UDRPs where IGOs expressly participated! Same for their claimed "inability to waive immunity" -- it's kind of funny how that argument was debunked, after a little bit of research brought to light examples of the World Bank (an IGO) filing lawsuits in US court. I could go on, and on, but if you want other examples, feel free to email me outside this list."
You have not debunked anything.
Indeed, IGOs, in responding to a request from the WG on which only you and a mere handful of others have participated (whether such participation by a few individuals with clear agendas represents a sound multistakeholder model is an altogether separate question) stated:
"Submission to the UDRP and URS as currently drafted would necessitate waiving IGOs’ immunity from legal process, which would involve a specific decision taken at the highest levels of our governance structures."
In other words, IGOs have not said they are categorically unable to use the UDRP, but that there are serious legal and institutional hurdles to doing so (at the least, sign off by the Office of Legal Counsel and Director General).
Moreover, your research unearthing one or two instances in almost 20 years of the UDRP where one or two IGOs have opted to face those legal and institutional hurdles does not "debunk" the clear and unchanged position of IGOs.
In that WG, when presented with evidence of abuse of IGO identities (there: on the heels of the Ebola crisis), rather than positively look for a solution that met the expressed needs of IGOs (not to mention GAC Advice), your WG has instead opted to "know better" and disregard legitimate concerns raised by IGOs -- there is nothing "funny" about this.
Thank you for noting, and again, I am not looking for a reaction.
Brian
_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg>
Petter, Very helpful, thanks for providing this perspective! Best, Claudio On Mon, Sep 4, 2017 at 4:31 AM Petter Rindforth < petter.rindforth@fenixlegal.eu> wrote:
Hi Brian, George & All,
I definitely don’t want to start a discussion here on what’s going on in another WG (everybody that are interested in that topic are welcome to join that WG). Just wanted to clarify that the IGO-INGO Access to Curative Rights Protection Mechanisms WG is in the final stage of working with a solution that hopefully will solve the immunity question and still offering both parties involved a clear and neutral dispute resolution process, without the need to change (or at least with no significant changes) of the current UDRP/URS.
Our first WG meeting was for more than three years ago, so make sure that we have deeply considered all aspects, comments and proposals from all groups of interest, with a special view on how IGO’s can use URS/UDRP.
As said, this topic is worked with in another WG and I gladly discuss it further in that WG. Hopefully, our solution will not mean that we give this WG a number of additional topics/open questions once it is time to work generally with the URS and in Step2 the UDRP.
Best, Petter Co-Chair IGO-INGO Access to Curative Rights Protection Mechanisms WG
-- 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
2 september 2017 12:43:44 +02:00, skrev Beckham, Brian < brian.beckham@wipo.int>:
George,
I am not seeking a reaction, but would like to nevertheless clarify/respond to an assertion you make in the context of the IGO curative rights WG, namely:
"In another PDP (the IGO one), I didn't need to "take a survey" to debunk the position that some IGOs were taking, that they were unable to use the UDRP (because of the mutual jurisdiction clause, which could affect their claimed immunity). Do you know what won the day? Going out and doing research, and actually finding examples of UDRPs where IGOs expressly participated! Same for their claimed "inability to waive immunity" -- it's kind of funny how that argument was debunked, after a little bit of research brought to light examples of the World Bank (an IGO) filing lawsuits in US court. I could go on, and on, but if you want other examples, feel free to email me outside this list."
You have not debunked anything.
Indeed, IGOs, in responding to a request from the WG on which only you and a mere handful of others have participated (whether such participation by a few individuals with clear agendas represents a sound multistakeholder model is an altogether separate question) stated:
"Submission to the UDRP and URS as currently drafted would necessitate waiving IGOs’ immunity from legal process, which would involve a specific decision taken at the highest levels of our governance structures."
In other words, IGOs have not said they are categorically unable to use the UDRP, but that there are serious legal and institutional hurdles to doing so (at the least, sign off by the Office of Legal Counsel and Director General).
Moreover, your research unearthing one or two instances in almost 20 years of the UDRP where one or two IGOs have opted to face those legal and institutional hurdles does not "debunk" the clear and unchanged position of IGOs.
In that WG, when presented with evidence of abuse of IGO identities (there: on the heels of the Ebola crisis), rather than positively look for a solution that met the expressed needs of IGOs (not to mention GAC Advice), your WG has instead opted to "know better" and disregard legitimate concerns raised by IGOs -- there is nothing "funny" about this.
Thank you for noting, and again, I am not looking for a reaction.
Brian
_______________________________________________ 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
Chiming in as the other co-chair of the IGO CRP WG, we are indeed in the final stages of our process after more than three years of work. and hope to deliver a Final Report prior to ICANN 60 in Abu Dhabi. For the record, much of the WG’s deliberation depended upon on a clear understanding of the generally recognized contours of IGO immunity from judicial process and to that end we halted our work for a considerable time to secure funding for an independent expert to be retained and develop an extensive and well-documented legal memo on that subject (that topic, unlike RPMs, did not lend itself to extensive data gathering). That expert essentially told us that the answer was “it depends”, depending upon the fact situation, and the national laws and analytical approach utilized by a court assessing an IGO’s immunity claim. Our Initial Report, and likely our Final one, did not take a position on the scope of IGO immunity because WG members did not feel it was appropriate for ICANN to have registrants renounce their ability to access a court under relevant national law where an IGO acted as Complainant, as RPMs are meant to supplement existing legal rights and not be a fully preemptive substitute. We also doubted that any court could be relied upon to respect such an attempt by a California non-profit corporation to compel a registrant to renounce its legal rights. Likewise, we have not taken a position as to whether an IGO acting as compliant in a UDRP or URS action has lost its ability to raise an immunity defense as a result of the mutual jurisdiction clause in the RPMs; indeed, the final issue we are grappling with is what should occur if an IGO successfully asserts that defense and the registrant’s litigation is consequently dismissed. So far as the composition of the WG, we have no ability to compel the involvement of any party, and IGOs (and GAC members) chose not to join as members despite repeated requests to do so. Nonetheless, IGOs did at time submit input to, and exchange in dialogue with, the WG, and all of that was given full and attentive consideration. Further, both co-chairs, along with GNSO leadership and GAC members, engaged in informal extended dialogue with members of ICANN’s Board on relevant IGO issues. As Petter indicated, additional discussion of this matter is best undertaken on the email list of the IGO WG. Best regards to all 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 claudio di gangi Sent: Monday, September 04, 2017 12:43 PM To: Beckham, Brian; petter.rindforth@fenixlegal.eu Cc: gnso-rpm-wg Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Directly from INTA's website: What the TTAB has to say about sample size Petter, Very helpful, thanks for providing this perspective! Best, Claudio On Mon, Sep 4, 2017 at 4:31 AM Petter Rindforth <petter.rindforth@fenixlegal.eu<mailto:petter.rindforth@fenixlegal.eu>> wrote: Hi Brian, George & All, I definitely don’t want to start a discussion here on what’s going on in another WG (everybody that are interested in that topic are welcome to join that WG). Just wanted to clarify that the IGO-INGO Access to Curative Rights Protection Mechanisms WG is in the final stage of working with a solution that hopefully will solve the immunity question and still offering both parties involved a clear and neutral dispute resolution process, without the need to change (or at least with no significant changes) of the current UDRP/URS. Our first WG meeting was for more than three years ago, so make sure that we have deeply considered all aspects, comments and proposals from all groups of interest, with a special view on how IGO’s can use URS/UDRP. As said, this topic is worked with in another WG and I gladly discuss it further in that WG. Hopefully, our solution will not mean that we give this WG a number of additional topics/open questions once it is time to work generally with the URS and in Step2 the UDRP. Best, Petter Co-Chair IGO-INGO Access to Curative Rights Protection Mechanisms WG -- 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 2 september 2017 12:43:44 +02:00, skrev Beckham, Brian <brian.beckham@wipo.int<mailto:brian.beckham@wipo.int>>: George, I am not seeking a reaction, but would like to nevertheless clarify/respond to an assertion you make in the context of the IGO curative rights WG, namely: "In another PDP (the IGO one), I didn't need to "take a survey" to debunk the position that some IGOs were taking, that they were unable to use the UDRP (because of the mutual jurisdiction clause, which could affect their claimed immunity). Do you know what won the day? Going out and doing research, and actually finding examples of UDRPs where IGOs expressly participated! Same for their claimed "inability to waive immunity" -- it's kind of funny how that argument was debunked, after a little bit of research brought to light examples of the World Bank (an IGO) filing lawsuits in US court. I could go on, and on, but if you want other examples, feel free to email me outside this list." You have not debunked anything. Indeed, IGOs, in responding to a request from the WG on which only you and a mere handful of others have participated (whether such participation by a few individuals with clear agendas represents a sound multistakeholder model is an altogether separate question) stated: "Submission to the UDRP and URS as currently drafted would necessitate waiving IGOs’ immunity from legal process, which would involve a specific decision taken at the highest levels of our governance structures." In other words, IGOs have not said they are categorically unable to use the UDRP, but that there are serious legal and institutional hurdles to doing so (at the least, sign off by the Office of Legal Counsel and Director General). Moreover, your research unearthing one or two instances in almost 20 years of the UDRP where one or two IGOs have opted to face those legal and institutional hurdles does not "debunk" the clear and unchanged position of IGOs. In that WG, when presented with evidence of abuse of IGO identities (there: on the heels of the Ebola crisis), rather than positively look for a solution that met the expressed needs of IGOs (not to mention GAC Advice), your WG has instead opted to "know better" and disregard legitimate concerns raised by IGOs -- there is nothing "funny" about this. Thank you for noting, and again, I am not looking for a reaction. Brian _______________________________________________ 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 have no issue with a well-executed study. I do have an issue with a badly done one that then goes to present its results as applicable to the entire market. Let us not waste our time with crap data and focus on doing our work well instead. Volker Am 01.09.2017 um 22:33 schrieb icannlists:
I continue to read these statistics lessons from George, Volker, and Paul K. with some amusement. We are definitely in "the lady doth protest too much" territory here.
We get it. You don't like the survey or the information it conveys. It doesn't fit your narrative or help your goals. But, it's not like our resident statistical experts have submitted any surveys of their own - scientifically perfect or otherwise - to back up their opinions. If the INTA survey conducted by Nielson, as Paul K. suggests, is worthy of being "laughed out of the room" where does that leave the personal opinions of those who didn't bother with producing a survey at all? I suppose that would be whatever is worse than being laughed out of a room...
So folks, can we move off the unrequested, unhelpful opinions about statistics (which are interestingly not backed up by surveys to validate their accuracy which I find ironic) and get on with dealing with the giant workload before us? We can't keep wasting time on this circular stuff. We need to get underway or else risk falling behind SubPro and get the full ire of the community directed at us. Thanks so much!
Best, Paul
-----Original Message----- From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of George Kirikos Sent: Friday, September 01, 2017 5:44 AM To: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Directly from INTA's website: What the TTAB has to say about sample size
I'm sure many folks are familiar with the concept of "confirmation bias":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias
Those who want to give weight to the INTA study, despite its statistical invalidity, appear to me to be suffering from that confirmation bias, as it's a study that happens to confirm or coincide with their prior beliefs.
As a group, we need to *overcome* those biases, and deal with evidence in a neutral, objective and scientific manner, lest those biases steer us on the wrong course.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
________________________________ The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. If this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author. Any tax advice contained in this email was not intended to be used, and cannot be used, by you (or any other taxpayer) to avoid penalties under applicable tax laws and regulations. _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
-- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.twitter.com/key_systems Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.twitter.com/key_systems CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.
Volker, Substance aside, I encourage you to elevate the tone of your communications on this list. The words we choose to convey our thoughts matter a great deal, let's aim for language that conveys respect to one another and builds unity. Best, Claudio On Mon, Sep 4, 2017 at 5:13 AM Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net> wrote:
I have no issue with a well-executed study. I do have an issue with a badly done one that then goes to present its results as applicable to the entire market.
Let us not waste our time with crap data and focus on doing our work well instead.
Volker
Am 01.09.2017 um 22:33 schrieb icannlists:
I continue to read these statistics lessons from George, Volker, and Paul K. with some amusement. We are definitely in "the lady doth protest too much" territory here.
We get it. You don't like the survey or the information it conveys. It doesn't fit your narrative or help your goals. But, it's not like our resident statistical experts have submitted any surveys of their own - scientifically perfect or otherwise - to back up their opinions. If the INTA survey conducted by Nielson, as Paul K. suggests, is worthy of being "laughed out of the room" where does that leave the personal opinions of those who didn't bother with producing a survey at all? I suppose that would be whatever is worse than being laughed out of a room...
So folks, can we move off the unrequested, unhelpful opinions about statistics (which are interestingly not backed up by surveys to validate their accuracy which I find ironic) and get on with dealing with the giant workload before us? We can't keep wasting time on this circular stuff. We need to get underway or else risk falling behind SubPro and get the full ire of the community directed at us. Thanks so much!
Best, Paul
-----Original Message----- From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of George Kirikos Sent: Friday, September 01, 2017 5:44 AM To: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Directly from INTA's website: What the TTAB has to say about sample size
I'm sure many folks are familiar with the concept of "confirmation bias":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias
Those who want to give weight to the INTA study, despite its statistical invalidity, appear to me to be suffering from that confirmation bias, as it's a study that happens to confirm or coincide with their prior beliefs.
As a group, we need to *overcome* those biases, and deal with evidence in a neutral, objective and scientific manner, lest those biases steer us on the wrong course.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
________________________________ The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. If this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author. Any tax advice contained in this email was not intended to be used, and cannot be used, by you (or any other taxpayer) to avoid penalties under applicable tax laws and regulations. _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
-- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung.
Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung -
Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net
Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com
Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.twitter.com/key_systems
Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu
Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen.
--------------------------------------------
Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Best regards,
Volker A. Greimann - legal department -
Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net
Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com
Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.twitter.com/key_systems
CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu
This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.
_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
Claudio, please do not confuse my lack of respect for certain data points with lack of respect for any members of this group or any person outside. I am sure this "study" (questionnaire might be a better word here) was well intentioned, but the quality of the data and the interpretations that have been derived from it leave much to be desired. Best, Volker Am 04.09.2017 um 18:54 schrieb claudio di gangi:
Volker,
Substance aside, I encourage you to elevate the tone of your communications on this list.
The words we choose to convey our thoughts matter a great deal, let's aim for language that conveys respect to one another and builds unity.
Best, Claudio
On Mon, Sep 4, 2017 at 5:13 AM Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>> wrote:
I have no issue with a well-executed study. I do have an issue with a badly done one that then goes to present its results as applicable to the entire market.
Let us not waste our time with crap data and focus on doing our work well instead.
Volker
Am 01.09.2017 um 22:33 schrieb icannlists: > I continue to read these statistics lessons from George, Volker, and Paul K. with some amusement. We are definitely in "the lady doth protest too much" territory here. > > We get it. You don't like the survey or the information it conveys. It doesn't fit your narrative or help your goals. But, it's not like our resident statistical experts have submitted any surveys of their own - scientifically perfect or otherwise - to back up their opinions. If the INTA survey conducted by Nielson, as Paul K. suggests, is worthy of being "laughed out of the room" where does that leave the personal opinions of those who didn't bother with producing a survey at all? I suppose that would be whatever is worse than being laughed out of a room... > > So folks, can we move off the unrequested, unhelpful opinions about statistics (which are interestingly not backed up by surveys to validate their accuracy which I find ironic) and get on with dealing with the giant workload before us? We can't keep wasting time on this circular stuff. We need to get underway or else risk falling behind SubPro and get the full ire of the community directed at us. Thanks so much! > > Best, > Paul > > > > -----Original Message----- > 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 George Kirikos > Sent: Friday, September 01, 2017 5:44 AM > To: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>> > Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Directly from INTA's website: What the TTAB has to say about sample size > > I'm sure many folks are familiar with the concept of "confirmation bias": > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias > > Those who want to give weight to the INTA study, despite its statistical invalidity, appear to me to be suffering from that confirmation bias, as it's a study that happens to confirm or coincide with their prior beliefs. > > As a group, we need to *overcome* those biases, and deal with evidence in a neutral, objective and scientific manner, lest those biases steer us on the wrong course. > > Sincerely, > > George Kirikos > 416-588-0269 > http://www.leap.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 > > ________________________________ > The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. If this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author. Any tax advice contained in this email was not intended to be used, and cannot be used, by you (or any other taxpayer) to avoid penalties under applicable tax laws and regulations. > _______________________________________________ > 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
-- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung.
Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung -
Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>
Web: www.key-systems.net <http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.RRPproxy.net> www.domaindiscount24.com <http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com <http://www.BrandShelter.com>
Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems <http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems <http://www.twitter.com/key_systems>
Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu <http://www.keydrive.lu>
Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen.
--------------------------------------------
Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Best regards,
Volker A. Greimann - legal department -
Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>
Web: www.key-systems.net <http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.RRPproxy.net> www.domaindiscount24.com <http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com <http://www.BrandShelter.com>
Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems <http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems <http://www.twitter.com/key_systems>
CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu <http://www.keydrive.lu>
This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.
_______________________________________________ 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
-- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.twitter.com/key_systems Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.twitter.com/key_systems CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.
Although silent on confidence intervals and margin of error, here’s an example of a statistical study that, due to the great sample size, inspires confidence in its conclusions. http://www.theonion.com/article/study-0-people-die-getting-fingers-lodged-bo... <http://www.theonion.com/article/study-0-people-die-getting-fingers-lodged-bo...> (not) Kurt
On Sep 4, 2017, at 2:13 AM, Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net> wrote:
I have no issue with a well-executed study. I do have an issue with a badly done one that then goes to present its results as applicable to the entire market.
Let us not waste our time with crap data and focus on doing our work well instead.
Volker
Am 01.09.2017 um 22:33 schrieb icannlists:
I continue to read these statistics lessons from George, Volker, and Paul K. with some amusement. We are definitely in "the lady doth protest too much" territory here.
We get it. You don't like the survey or the information it conveys. It doesn't fit your narrative or help your goals. But, it's not like our resident statistical experts have submitted any surveys of their own - scientifically perfect or otherwise - to back up their opinions. If the INTA survey conducted by Nielson, as Paul K. suggests, is worthy of being "laughed out of the room" where does that leave the personal opinions of those who didn't bother with producing a survey at all? I suppose that would be whatever is worse than being laughed out of a room...
So folks, can we move off the unrequested, unhelpful opinions about statistics (which are interestingly not backed up by surveys to validate their accuracy which I find ironic) and get on with dealing with the giant workload before us? We can't keep wasting time on this circular stuff. We need to get underway or else risk falling behind SubPro and get the full ire of the community directed at us. Thanks so much!
Best, Paul
-----Original Message----- From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of George Kirikos Sent: Friday, September 01, 2017 5:44 AM To: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Directly from INTA's website: What the TTAB has to say about sample size
I'm sure many folks are familiar with the concept of "confirmation bias":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias
Those who want to give weight to the INTA study, despite its statistical invalidity, appear to me to be suffering from that confirmation bias, as it's a study that happens to confirm or coincide with their prior beliefs.
As a group, we need to *overcome* those biases, and deal with evidence in a neutral, objective and scientific manner, lest those biases steer us on the wrong course.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
________________________________ The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. If this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author. Any tax advice contained in this email was not intended to be used, and cannot be used, by you (or any other taxpayer) to avoid penalties under applicable tax laws and regulations. _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
-- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung.
Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung -
Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net
Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com
Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.twitter.com/key_systems
Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu
Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen.
--------------------------------------------
Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Best regards,
Volker A. Greimann - legal department -
Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net
Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com
Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.twitter.com/key_systems
CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu
This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.
_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
Unfortunately, that study doesn't distinguish between new bowling alleys and legacy lanes. On Mon, Sep 4, 2017 at 6:26 PM Kurt Pritz <kurt@kjpritz.com> wrote:
Although silent on confidence intervals and margin of error, here’s an example of a statistical study that, due to the great sample size, inspires confidence in its conclusions.
http://www.theonion.com/article/study-0-people-die-getting-fingers-lodged-bo...
(not) Kurt
On Sep 4, 2017, at 2:13 AM, Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net> wrote:
I have no issue with a well-executed study. I do have an issue with a badly done one that then goes to present its results as applicable to the entire market.
Let us not waste our time with crap data and focus on doing our work well instead.
Volker
Am 01.09.2017 um 22:33 schrieb icannlists:
I continue to read these statistics lessons from George, Volker, and Paul K. with some amusement. We are definitely in "the lady doth protest too much" territory here.
We get it. You don't like the survey or the information it conveys. It doesn't fit your narrative or help your goals. But, it's not like our resident statistical experts have submitted any surveys of their own - scientifically perfect or otherwise - to back up their opinions. If the INTA survey conducted by Nielson, as Paul K. suggests, is worthy of being "laughed out of the room" where does that leave the personal opinions of those who didn't bother with producing a survey at all? I suppose that would be whatever is worse than being laughed out of a room...
So folks, can we move off the unrequested, unhelpful opinions about statistics (which are interestingly not backed up by surveys to validate their accuracy which I find ironic) and get on with dealing with the giant workload before us? We can't keep wasting time on this circular stuff. We need to get underway or else risk falling behind SubPro and get the full ire of the community directed at us. Thanks so much!
Best, Paul
-----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 George Kirikos Sent: Friday, September 01, 2017 5:44 AM To: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Directly from INTA's website: What the TTAB has to say about sample size
I'm sure many folks are familiar with the concept of "confirmation bias":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias
Those who want to give weight to the INTA study, despite its statistical invalidity, appear to me to be suffering from that confirmation bias, as it's a study that happens to confirm or coincide with their prior beliefs.
As a group, we need to *overcome* those biases, and deal with evidence in a neutral, objective and scientific manner, lest those biases steer us on the wrong course.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
________________________________ The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. If this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author. Any tax advice contained in this email was not intended to be used, and cannot be used, by you (or any other taxpayer) to avoid penalties under applicable tax laws and regulations. _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
-- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung.
Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung -
Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net
Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com
Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.twitter.com/key_systems
Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu
Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen.
--------------------------------------------
Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Best regards,
Volker A. Greimann - legal department -
Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net
Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com
Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.twitter.com/key_systems
CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu
This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.
_______________________________________________ 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
participants (9)
-
Beckham, Brian -
claudio di gangi -
George Kirikos -
icannlists -
Kurt Pritz -
Paul Tattersfield -
Petter Rindforth -
Phil Corwin -
Volker Greimann