A few clarifications on the TM-PDDRP Community Survey
Hello everyone, In light of a few questions that have been raised about the survey, staff hopes the following notes will be helpful: - The initial email solicitation that was sent to Supporting Organizations, Advisory Committees, Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies (SO/ACdid not specify a date by which the responses were expected, though a subsequent note mentioned mid-September, and we kept the survey open for some time after that date. - Question 1 of the survey asked for the respondent’s name and details (though they could choose not to provide them) – this isn’t reflected in the consolidated responses document, which starts from Question 2 (SO/AC/SG/C affiliation). - Not all respondents noted their SO/AC/SG/C affiliation (if any); of those that did, I believe we got responses from 1 Registries, 5 Registrars, 3 IPC, 2 BC, 1 ccNSO, and 1 At-Large member (if I recall correctly). Several respondents also answered that they represented trademark owners. - Certain questions were predicated on a “If your answer to the preceding question is Yes” basis; however, a respondent could choose to also provide examples and details even if they didn’t answer Yes to the previous question. Finally, the Working Group may recall that a few members volunteered several weeks ago to compile a Google Document comprising real/observed experiences with perceived registry behavior that they believe may come within the purview of the TM-PDDRP. That document has been circulated for a last review amongst the group of volunteers, and we hope to share it with the full Working Group after the call tomorrow, if not before. Perhaps the Working Group can review that document prior to deciding whether or not to recirculate the survey. We hope this information is of assistance. Cheers Mary On 10/18/16, 09:53, "gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Steve Levy" <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org on behalf of slevy@accentlawgroup.com> wrote: +1 Brian On 10/18/16, 9:42 AM, "gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Winterfeldt, Brian J." <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org on behalf of BWinterfeldt@mayerbrown.com> wrote: >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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.protecti... >C01%7CBwinterfeldt%40mayerbrown.com%7Ccad701c35dc3416845bd08d3f759bebb%7C0 >9131022b7854e6d8d42916975e51262%7C0&sdata=FLB5lBUu8KJ452nIHswQDuHxLero4h40 >8S6BwADCfwk%3D&reserved=0 > > > > > > > > >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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.protecti... . >>org%2Fpipermail%2Fgnso-rpm-wg%2F2016-October%2F000685.html&data=01%7C01%7 >>CBwinterfeldt%40mayerbrown.com%7Ccad701c35dc3416845bd08d3f759bebb%7C09131 >>022b7854e6d8d42916975e51262%7C0&sdata=VIUCDoME2%2FjmgMFmQqmykgl8zJEZJU6Ov >>zU%2FcwVRe%2Fs%3D&reserved=0 >> >>"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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.protecti... . >>com%2F&data=01%7C01%7CBwinterfeldt%40mayerbrown.com%7Ccad701c35dc3416845b >>d08d3f759bebb%7C09131022b7854e6d8d42916975e51262%7C0&sdata=tWfU%2BStelCVq >>yAuxWiUPXf1BS0BKBHUMUW1ztiwBJkY%3D&reserved=0 >> >> >> >>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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.protecti... >>>%7C01%7CBwinterfeldt%40mayerbrown.com%7Ccad701c35dc3416845bd08d3f759bebb >>>%7C09131022b7854e6d8d42916975e51262%7C0&sdata=FLB5lBUu8KJ452nIHswQDuHxLe >>>ro4h408S6BwADCfwk%3D&reserved=0 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> 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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.protecti... >>>>p.com%2F&data=01%7C01%7CBwinterfeldt%40mayerbrown.com%7Ccad701c35dc3416 >>>>845bd08d3f759bebb%7C09131022b7854e6d8d42916975e51262%7C0&sdata=tWfU%2BS >>>>telCVqyAuxWiUPXf1BS0BKBHUMUW1ztiwBJkY%3D&reserved=0 >>>> >>>> >>>>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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.protecti... >>>>>01%7C01%7CBwinterfeldt%40mayerbrown.com%7Ccad701c35dc3416845bd08d3f759 >>>>>bebb%7C09131022b7854e6d8d42916975e51262%7C0&sdata=FLB5lBUu8KJ452nIHswQ >>>>>DuHxLero4h408S6BwADCfwk%3D&reserved=0 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.protecti... . >>>>>>surveymonkey.com%2Fmp%2Ftour%2Fskiplogic%2F&data=01%7C01%7CBwinterfel >>>>>>dt%40mayerbrown.com%7Ccad701c35dc3416845bd08d3f759bebb%7C09131022b785 >>>>>>4e6d8d42916975e51262%7C0&sdata=vl6Lhl21GVSzrgY1nnJklWCQxvJk%2FElc2yi9 >>>>>>flUzNx0%3D&reserved=0 >>>>>> >>>>>>Given the above, I'd place little weight on the results, either "for" >>>>>>something or "against" something. >>>>>> >>>>>>Sincerely, >>>>>> >>>>>>George Kirikos >>>>>>416-588-0269 >>>>>>https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.protecti... >>>>>>eap.com%2F&data=01%7C01%7CBwinterfeldt%40mayerbrown.com%7Ccad701c35dc >>>>>>3416845bd08d3f759bebb%7C09131022b7854e6d8d42916975e51262%7C0&sdata=tW >>>>>>fU%2BStelCVqyAuxWiUPXf1BS0BKBHUMUW1ztiwBJkY%3D&reserved=0 >>>>>> >>>>>>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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.protecti... >>>>>>>a=01%7C01%7CBwinterfeldt%40mayerbrown.com%7Ccad701c35dc3416845bd08d3 >>>>>>>f759bebb%7C09131022b7854e6d8d42916975e51262%7C0&sdata=FLB5lBUu8KJ452 >>>>>>>nIHswQDuHxLero4h408S6BwADCfwk%3D&reserved=0 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.protecti... >>>>>>>munity.icann.org%2Fx%2FugqsAw%5Bcommunity.icann.org&data=01%7C01%7CB >>>>>>>winterfeldt%40mayerbrown.com%7Ccad701c35dc3416845bd08d3f759bebb%7C09 >>>>>>>131022b7854e6d8d42916975e51262%7C0&sdata=3AhE7D7sQ71PXkCT2Y4BBmXOIBM >>>>>>>%2FVXefpQnxZ8CnsKU%3D&reserved=0]. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.protecti... . >>>>>>>icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-rpm-wg&data=01%7C01%7CBwinterf >>>>>>>eldt%40mayerbrown.com%7Ccad701c35dc3416845bd08d3f759bebb%7C09131022b >>>>>>>7854e6d8d42916975e51262%7C0&sdata=nNFktZrR2RCSn2zoMfdFLp1t2uvlKXPFI9 >>>>>>>PJ%2BbWKU5o%3D&reserved=0 >>>>>>_______________________________________________ >>>>>>gnso-rpm-wg mailing list >>>>>>gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org >>>>>>https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.protecti... >>>>>>cann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-rpm-wg&data=01%7C01%7CBwinterfel >>>>>>dt%40mayerbrown.com%7Ccad701c35dc3416845bd08d3f759bebb%7C09131022b785 >>>>>>4e6d8d42916975e51262%7C0&sdata=nNFktZrR2RCSn2zoMfdFLp1t2uvlKXPFI9PJ%2 >>>>>>BbWKU5o%3D&reserved=0 >>>>> >>>>_______________________________________________ >>>>gnso-rpm-wg mailing list >>>>gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org >>>>https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.protecti... >>>>nn.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-rpm-wg&data=01%7C01%7CBwinterfeldt%4 >>>>0mayerbrown.com%7Ccad701c35dc3416845bd08d3f759bebb%7C09131022b7854e6d8d >>>>42916975e51262%7C0&sdata=nNFktZrR2RCSn2zoMfdFLp1t2uvlKXPFI9PJ%2BbWKU5o% >>>>3D&reserved=0 >>> > >_______________________________________________ >gnso-rpm-wg mailing list >gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org >https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.protecti... . >org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-rpm-wg&data=01%7C01%7CBwinterfeldt%40mayer >brown.com%7Ccad701c35dc3416845bd08d3f759bebb%7C09131022b7854e6d8d42916975e >51262%7C0&sdata=nNFktZrR2RCSn2zoMfdFLp1t2uvlKXPFI9PJ%2BbWKU5o%3D&reserved= >0 >__________________________________________________________________________ > > >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 _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
All, I am underwhelmed by this survey response. I believe the ICANN Community knows how to respond when it wants to (e.g., we received 10,000 responses to our call for public comment in the Proxy/Privacy Accreditation (PPSAI) WG and one of them had thousands of signatories). I think that this survey suffers from its consolidation. I urge everyone to read the full, short 11 pages of the unedited, unrefined survey results. Some communities did not respond at all (and I can speak for my community that there was no groundswell of interest in change, so we did not respond). Of those who Did Response, most (2:1) wrote with us that they have NOT seen "conduct by new gTLD registry operators" that they believe constitutes a "substantial pattern or practice of specific bad faith intent to provide from the sale of trademark infringing domain names." Accordingly, they Skipped questions 8, 9 and 10 about how to make the TM-PDDRP better because they did not feel it was needed. Accordingly, of the 16 responses, 11 of them Did Not recommend Any Changes to the TM-PDDRP. That's an affirmative act. These are skilled members of our Community - Registries, Registrars, ccTLDs, IPC Members, Business Constituency (they responded with names and/or affiliations that you can see on the full survey results). They know how to ask for what they want and need. I don't think we need redo this survey, but I do think we need to analyze it -- the unconsolidated, detailed version. And then talk about mediation, consolidation, and a limitations period, issues that have been discussed extensively in our WG since the early days of our TM-PDDRP discussions. Full survey, /All TM=PDDRP Survey Response from Community, /attached. Also posted on our WG TM-PDDRP Wiki page at https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/Additional+Documents+and+Ma... Best, Kathy On 10/18/2016 10:19 AM, Mary Wong wrote:
Hello everyone,
In light of a few questions that have been raised about the survey, staff hopes the following notes will be helpful:
- The initial email solicitation that was sent to Supporting Organizations, Advisory Committees, Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies (SO/ACdid not specify a date by which the responses were expected, though a subsequent note mentioned mid-September, and we kept the survey open for some time after that date.
- Question 1 of the survey asked for the respondent’s name and details (though they could choose not to provide them) – this isn’t reflected in the consolidated responses document, which starts from Question 2 (SO/AC/SG/C affiliation).
- Not all respondents noted their SO/AC/SG/C affiliation (if any); of those that did, I believe we got responses from 1 Registries, 5 Registrars, 3 IPC, 2 BC, 1 ccNSO, and 1 At-Large member (if I recall correctly). Several respondents also answered that they represented trademark owners.
- Certain questions were predicated on a “If your answer to the preceding question is Yes” basis; however, a respondent could choose to also provide examples and details even if they didn’t answer Yes to the previous question.
Finally, the Working Group may recall that a few members volunteered several weeks ago to compile a Google Document comprising real/observed experiences with perceived registry behavior that they believe may come within the purview of the TM-PDDRP. That document has been circulated for a last review amongst the group of volunteers, and we hope to share it with the full Working Group after the call tomorrow, if not before. Perhaps the Working Group can review that document prior to deciding whether or not to recirculate the survey.
We hope this information is of assistance.
Cheers Mary
On 10/18/16, 09:53, "gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Steve Levy" <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org on behalf of slevy@accentlawgroup.com> wrote:
+1 Brian
On 10/18/16, 9:42 AM, "gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org on behalf of
Winterfeldt, Brian J." <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org on behalf of
BWinterfeldt@mayerbrown.com> wrote:
>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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.protecti...
>C01%7CBwinterfeldt%40mayerbrown.com%7Ccad701c35dc3416845bd08d3f759bebb%7C0
>9131022b7854e6d8d42916975e51262%7C0&sdata=FLB5lBUu8KJ452nIHswQDuHxLero4h40
>8S6BwADCfwk%3D&reserved=0
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.protecti... .
>>org%2Fpipermail%2Fgnso-rpm-wg%2F2016-October%2F000685.html&data=01%7C01%7
>>CBwinterfeldt%40mayerbrown.com%7Ccad701c35dc3416845bd08d3f759bebb%7C09131
>>022b7854e6d8d42916975e51262%7C0&sdata=VIUCDoME2%2FjmgMFmQqmykgl8zJEZJU6Ov
>>zU%2FcwVRe%2Fs%3D&reserved=0
>>
>>"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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.protecti... .
>>com%2F&data=01%7C01%7CBwinterfeldt%40mayerbrown.com%7Ccad701c35dc3416845b
>>d08d3f759bebb%7C09131022b7854e6d8d42916975e51262%7C0&sdata=tWfU%2BStelCVq
>>yAuxWiUPXf1BS0BKBHUMUW1ztiwBJkY%3D&reserved=0
>>
>>
>>
>>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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.protecti...
>>>%7C01%7CBwinterfeldt%40mayerbrown.com%7Ccad701c35dc3416845bd08d3f759bebb
>>>%7C09131022b7854e6d8d42916975e51262%7C0&sdata=FLB5lBUu8KJ452nIHswQDuHxLe
>>>ro4h408S6BwADCfwk%3D&reserved=0
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.protecti...
>>>>p.com%2F&data=01%7C01%7CBwinterfeldt%40mayerbrown.com%7Ccad701c35dc3416
>>>>845bd08d3f759bebb%7C09131022b7854e6d8d42916975e51262%7C0&sdata=tWfU%2BS
>>>>telCVqyAuxWiUPXf1BS0BKBHUMUW1ztiwBJkY%3D&reserved=0
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.protecti...
>>>>>01%7C01%7CBwinterfeldt%40mayerbrown.com%7Ccad701c35dc3416845bd08d3f759
>>>>>bebb%7C09131022b7854e6d8d42916975e51262%7C0&sdata=FLB5lBUu8KJ452nIHswQ
>>>>>DuHxLero4h408S6BwADCfwk%3D&reserved=0
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.protecti... .
>>>>>>surveymonkey.com%2Fmp%2Ftour%2Fskiplogic%2F&data=01%7C01%7CBwinterfel
>>>>>>dt%40mayerbrown.com%7Ccad701c35dc3416845bd08d3f759bebb%7C09131022b785
>>>>>>4e6d8d42916975e51262%7C0&sdata=vl6Lhl21GVSzrgY1nnJklWCQxvJk%2FElc2yi9
>>>>>>flUzNx0%3D&reserved=0
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Given the above, I'd place little weight on the results, either "for"
>>>>>>something or "against" something.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Sincerely,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>George Kirikos
>>>>>>416-588-0269
>>>>>>https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.protecti...
>>>>>>eap.com%2F&data=01%7C01%7CBwinterfeldt%40mayerbrown.com%7Ccad701c35dc
>>>>>>3416845bd08d3f759bebb%7C09131022b7854e6d8d42916975e51262%7C0&sdata=tW
>>>>>>fU%2BStelCVqyAuxWiUPXf1BS0BKBHUMUW1ztiwBJkY%3D&reserved=0
>>>>>>
>>>>>>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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.protecti...
>>>>>>>a=01%7C01%7CBwinterfeldt%40mayerbrown.com%7Ccad701c35dc3416845bd08d3
>>>>>>>f759bebb%7C09131022b7854e6d8d42916975e51262%7C0&sdata=FLB5lBUu8KJ452
>>>>>>>nIHswQDuHxLero4h408S6BwADCfwk%3D&reserved=0
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.protecti...
>>>>>>>munity.icann.org%2Fx%2FugqsAw%5Bcommunity.icann.org&data=01%7C01%7CB
>>>>>>>winterfeldt%40mayerbrown.com%7Ccad701c35dc3416845bd08d3f759bebb%7C09
>>>>>>>131022b7854e6d8d42916975e51262%7C0&sdata=3AhE7D7sQ71PXkCT2Y4BBmXOIBM
>>>>>>>%2FVXefpQnxZ8CnsKU%3D&reserved=0].
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.protecti... .
>>>>>>>icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-rpm-wg&data=01%7C01%7CBwinterf
>>>>>>>eldt%40mayerbrown.com%7Ccad701c35dc3416845bd08d3f759bebb%7C09131022b
>>>>>>>7854e6d8d42916975e51262%7C0&sdata=nNFktZrR2RCSn2zoMfdFLp1t2uvlKXPFI9
>>>>>>>PJ%2BbWKU5o%3D&reserved=0
>>>>>>_______________________________________________
>>>>>>gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
>>>>>>gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org
>>>>>>https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.protecti...
>>>>>>cann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-rpm-wg&data=01%7C01%7CBwinterfel
>>>>>>dt%40mayerbrown.com%7Ccad701c35dc3416845bd08d3f759bebb%7C09131022b785
>>>>>>4e6d8d42916975e51262%7C0&sdata=nNFktZrR2RCSn2zoMfdFLp1t2uvlKXPFI9PJ%2
>>>>>>BbWKU5o%3D&reserved=0
>>>>>
>>>>_______________________________________________
>>>>gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
>>>>gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org
>>>>https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.protecti...
>>>>nn.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-rpm-wg&data=01%7C01%7CBwinterfeldt%4
>>>>0mayerbrown.com%7Ccad701c35dc3416845bd08d3f759bebb%7C09131022b7854e6d8d
>>>>42916975e51262%7C0&sdata=nNFktZrR2RCSn2zoMfdFLp1t2uvlKXPFI9PJ%2BbWKU5o%
>>>>3D&reserved=0
>>>
>
>_______________________________________________
>gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
>gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org
>https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.protecti... .
>org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-rpm-wg&data=01%7C01%7CBwinterfeldt%40mayer
>brown.com%7Ccad701c35dc3416845bd08d3f759bebb%7C09131022b7854e6d8d42916975e
>51262%7C0&sdata=nNFktZrR2RCSn2zoMfdFLp1t2uvlKXPFI9PJ%2BbWKU5o%3D&reserved=
>0
>__________________________________________________________________________
>
>
>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
_______________________________________________ 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
Dear Kathy, I agree about looking at the raw details of the survey but I disagree with the PPSAI analogy. That was fundamentally different in that it was a grass roots campaign whose respondents went well beyond the typical participants in the ICANN community and that had a pre written, suggested response in the nature of a form letter. The PDDRP survey required much more thought, effort, detail and a true working knowledge of the industry. The PPSAI survey did not. They are not the same and think is unfair to compare the 2 responses. Lori Lori S. Schulman Senior Director, Internet Policy International Trademark Association (INTA) +1-202-704-0408, Skype: lsschulman From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kathy Kleiman Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2016 11:30 AM To: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] A few clarifications on the TM-PDDRP Community Survey All, I am underwhelmed by this survey response. I believe the ICANN Community knows how to respond when it wants to (e.g., we received 10,000 responses to our call for public comment in the Proxy/Privacy Accreditation (PPSAI) WG and one of them had thousands of signatories). I think that this survey suffers from its consolidation. I urge everyone to read the full, short 11 pages of the unedited, unrefined survey results. Some communities did not respond at all (and I can speak for my community that there was no groundswell of interest in change, so we did not respond). Of those who Did Response, most (2:1) wrote with us that they have NOT seen "conduct by new gTLD registry operators" that they believe constitutes a "substantial pattern or practice of specific bad faith intent to provide from the sale of trademark infringing domain names." Accordingly, they Skipped questions 8, 9 and 10 about how to make the TM-PDDRP better because they did not feel it was needed. Accordingly, of the 16 responses, 11 of them Did Not recommend Any Changes to the TM-PDDRP. That's an affirmative act. These are skilled members of our Community - Registries, Registrars, ccTLDs, IPC Members, Business Constituency (they responded with names and/or affiliations that you can see on the full survey results). They know how to ask for what they want and need. I don't think we need redo this survey, but I do think we need to analyze it -- the unconsolidated, detailed version. And then talk about mediation, consolidation, and a limitations period, issues that have been discussed extensively in our WG since the early days of our TM-PDDRP discussions. Full survey, All TM=PDDRP Survey Response from Community, attached. Also posted on our WG TM-PDDRP Wiki page at https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/Additional+Documents+and+Ma... Best, Kathy On 10/18/2016 10:19 AM, Mary Wong wrote: Hello everyone, In light of a few questions that have been raised about the survey, staff hopes the following notes will be helpful: - The initial email solicitation that was sent to Supporting Organizations, Advisory Committees, Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies (SO/ACdid not specify a date by which the responses were expected, though a subsequent note mentioned mid-September, and we kept the survey open for some time after that date. - Question 1 of the survey asked for the respondent’s name and details (though they could choose not to provide them) – this isn’t reflected in the consolidated responses document, which starts from Question 2 (SO/AC/SG/C affiliation). - Not all respondents noted their SO/AC/SG/C affiliation (if any); of those that did, I believe we got responses from 1 Registries, 5 Registrars, 3 IPC, 2 BC, 1 ccNSO, and 1 At-Large member (if I recall correctly). Several respondents also answered that they represented trademark owners. - Certain questions were predicated on a “If your answer to the preceding question is Yes” basis; however, a respondent could choose to also provide examples and details even if they didn’t answer Yes to the previous question. Finally, the Working Group may recall that a few members volunteered several weeks ago to compile a Google Document comprising real/observed experiences with perceived registry behavior that they believe may come within the purview of the TM-PDDRP. That document has been circulated for a last review amongst the group of volunteers, and we hope to share it with the full Working Group after the call tomorrow, if not before. Perhaps the Working Group can review that document prior to deciding whether or not to recirculate the survey. We hope this information is of assistance. Cheers Mary On 10/18/16, 09:53, "gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Steve Levy"<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.orgonbehalfofSteveLevy> <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org on behalf of slevy@accentlawgroup.com><mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.orgonbehalfofslevy@accentlawgroup.com> wrote: +1 Brian On 10/18/16, 9:42 AM, "gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org on behalf of<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.orgonbehalfofWinterfeldt,BrianJ.> <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.orgonbehalfofWinterfeldt,BrianJ.> Winterfeldt, Brian J."<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.orgonbehalfofWinterfeldt,BrianJ.> <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org on behalf of<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.orgonbehalfofBWinterfeldt@mayerbrown.com> <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.orgonbehalfofBWinterfeldt@mayerbrown.com> BWinterfeldt@mayerbrown.com><mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.orgonbehalfofBWinterfeldt@mayerbrown.com> wrote: >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> >[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<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> >https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.protecti... >C01%7CBwinterfeldt%40mayerbrown.com%7Ccad701c35dc3416845bd08d3f759bebb%7C0 >9131022b7854e6d8d42916975e51262%7C0&sdata=FLB5lBUu8KJ452nIHswQDuHxLero4h40 >8S6BwADCfwk%3D&reserved=0 > > > > > > > > >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: >> >>https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.protecti... . >>org%2Fpipermail%2Fgnso-rpm-wg%2F2016-October%2F000685.html&data=01%7C01%7 >>CBwinterfeldt%40mayerbrown.com%7Ccad701c35dc3416845bd08d3f759bebb%7C09131 >>022b7854e6d8d42916975e51262%7C0&sdata=VIUCDoME2%2FjmgMFmQqmykgl8zJEZJU6Ov >>zU%2FcwVRe%2Fs%3D&reserved=0 >> >>"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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.protecti... . >>com%2F&data=01%7C01%7CBwinterfeldt%40mayerbrown.com%7Ccad701c35dc3416845b >>d08d3f759bebb%7C09131022b7854e6d8d42916975e51262%7C0&sdata=tWfU%2BStelCVq >>yAuxWiUPXf1BS0BKBHUMUW1ztiwBJkY%3D&reserved=0 >> >> >> >>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> >>> >>>https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.protecti... >>>%7C01%7CBwinterfeldt%40mayerbrown.com%7Ccad701c35dc3416845bd08d3f759bebb >>>%7C09131022b7854e6d8d42916975e51262%7C0&sdata=FLB5lBUu8KJ452nIHswQDuHxLe >>>ro4h408S6BwADCfwk%3D&reserved=0 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> 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 on behalf of icann@leap.com><mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.orgonbehalfoficann@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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.protecti... >>>>p.com%2F&data=01%7C01%7CBwinterfeldt%40mayerbrown.com%7Ccad701c35dc3416 >>>>845bd08d3f759bebb%7C09131022b7854e6d8d42916975e51262%7C0&sdata=tWfU%2BS >>>>telCVqyAuxWiUPXf1BS0BKBHUMUW1ztiwBJkY%3D&reserved=0 >>>> >>>> >>>>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> >>>>> >>>>>https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.protecti... >>>>>01%7C01%7CBwinterfeldt%40mayerbrown.com%7Ccad701c35dc3416845bd08d3f759 >>>>>bebb%7C09131022b7854e6d8d42916975e51262%7C0&sdata=FLB5lBUu8KJ452nIHswQ >>>>>DuHxLero4h408S6BwADCfwk%3D&reserved=0 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 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 on behalf of icann@leap.com><mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.orgonbehalfoficann@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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.protecti... . >>>>>>surveymonkey.com%2Fmp%2Ftour%2Fskiplogic%2F&data=01%7C01%7CBwinterfel >>>>>>dt%40mayerbrown.com%7Ccad701c35dc3416845bd08d3f759bebb%7C09131022b785 >>>>>>4e6d8d42916975e51262%7C0&sdata=vl6Lhl21GVSzrgY1nnJklWCQxvJk%2FElc2yi9 >>>>>>flUzNx0%3D&reserved=0 >>>>>> >>>>>>Given the above, I'd place little weight on the results, either "for" >>>>>>something or "against" something. >>>>>> >>>>>>Sincerely, >>>>>> >>>>>>George Kirikos >>>>>>416-588-0269 >>>>>>https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.protecti... >>>>>>eap.com%2F&data=01%7C01%7CBwinterfeldt%40mayerbrown.com%7Ccad701c35dc >>>>>>3416845bd08d3f759bebb%7C09131022b7854e6d8d42916975e51262%7C0&sdata=tW >>>>>>fU%2BStelCVqyAuxWiUPXf1BS0BKBHUMUW1ztiwBJkY%3D&reserved=0 >>>>>> >>>>>>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> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.protecti... >>>>>>>a=01%7C01%7CBwinterfeldt%40mayerbrown.com%7Ccad701c35dc3416845bd08d3 >>>>>>>f759bebb%7C09131022b7854e6d8d42916975e51262%7C0&sdata=FLB5lBUu8KJ452 >>>>>>>nIHswQDuHxLero4h408S6BwADCfwk%3D&reserved=0 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.protecti... >>>>>>>munity.icann.org%2Fx%2FugqsAw%5Bcommunity.icann.org&data=01%7C01%7CB >>>>>>>winterfeldt%40mayerbrown.com%7Ccad701c35dc3416845bd08d3f759bebb%7C09 >>>>>>>131022b7854e6d8d42916975e51262%7C0&sdata=3AhE7D7sQ71PXkCT2Y4BBmXOIBM >>>>>>>%2FVXefpQnxZ8CnsKU%3D&reserved=0]. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.protecti... . >>>>>>>icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-rpm-wg&data=01%7C01%7CBwinterf >>>>>>>eldt%40mayerbrown.com%7Ccad701c35dc3416845bd08d3f759bebb%7C09131022b >>>>>>>7854e6d8d42916975e51262%7C0&sdata=nNFktZrR2RCSn2zoMfdFLp1t2uvlKXPFI9 >>>>>>>PJ%2BbWKU5o%3D&reserved=0 >>>>>>_______________________________________________ >>>>>>gnso-rpm-wg mailing list >>>>>>gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> >>>>>>https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.protecti... >>>>>>cann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-rpm-wg&data=01%7C01%7CBwinterfel >>>>>>dt%40mayerbrown.com%7Ccad701c35dc3416845bd08d3f759bebb%7C09131022b785 >>>>>>4e6d8d42916975e51262%7C0&sdata=nNFktZrR2RCSn2zoMfdFLp1t2uvlKXPFI9PJ%2 >>>>>>BbWKU5o%3D&reserved=0 >>>>> >>>>_______________________________________________ >>>>gnso-rpm-wg mailing list >>>>gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> >>>>https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.protecti... >>>>nn.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-rpm-wg&data=01%7C01%7CBwinterfeldt%4 >>>>0mayerbrown.com%7Ccad701c35dc3416845bd08d3f759bebb%7C09131022b7854e6d8d >>>>42916975e51262%7C0&sdata=nNFktZrR2RCSn2zoMfdFLp1t2uvlKXPFI9PJ%2BbWKU5o% >>>>3D&reserved=0 >>> > >_______________________________________________ >gnso-rpm-wg mailing list >gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> >https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.protecti... . >org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-rpm-wg&data=01%7C01%7CBwinterfeldt%40mayer >brown.com%7Ccad701c35dc3416845bd08d3f759bebb%7C09131022b7854e6d8d42916975e >51262%7C0&sdata=nNFktZrR2RCSn2zoMfdFLp1t2uvlKXPFI9PJ%2BbWKU5o%3D&reserved= >0 >__________________________________________________________________________ > > >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<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 ________________________________
+1 to Lori's comments. Brian J. Winterfeldt Co-Head of Global Brand Management and Internet Practice Mayer Brown LLP bwinterfeldt@mayerbrown.com<mailto:bwinterfeldt@mayerbrown.com> 1999 K Street, NW<x-apple-data-detectors://2/2> Washington, DC 20006-1101<x-apple-data-detectors://2/2> 202.263.3284<tel:202.263.3284> direct dial 202.830.0330<tel:202.830.0330> fax 1221 Avenue of the Americas<x-apple-data-detectors://3/0> New York, New York 10020-1001<x-apple-data-detectors://3/0> 212.506.2345<tel:212.506.2345> direct dial On Oct 18, 2016, at 12:02 PM, Lori Schulman <lschulman@inta.org<mailto:lschulman@inta.org>> wrote: Dear Kathy, I agree about looking at the raw details of the survey but I disagree with the PPSAI analogy. That was fundamentally different in that it was a grass roots campaign whose respondents went well beyond the typical participants in the ICANN community and that had a pre written, suggested response in the nature of a form letter. The PDDRP survey required much more thought, effort, detail and a true working knowledge of the industry. The PPSAI survey did not. They are not the same and think is unfair to compare the 2 responses. Lori Lori S. Schulman Senior Director, Internet Policy International Trademark Association (INTA) +1-202-704-0408, Skype: lsschulman 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: Tuesday, October 18, 2016 11:30 AM To: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] A few clarifications on the TM-PDDRP Community Survey All, I am underwhelmed by this survey response. I believe the ICANN Community knows how to respond when it wants to (e.g., we received 10,000 responses to our call for public comment in the Proxy/Privacy Accreditation (PPSAI) WG and one of them had thousands of signatories). I think that this survey suffers from its consolidation. I urge everyone to read the full, short 11 pages of the unedited, unrefined survey results. Some communities did not respond at all (and I can speak for my community that there was no groundswell of interest in change, so we did not respond). Of those who Did Response, most (2:1) wrote with us that they have NOT seen "conduct by new gTLD registry operators" that they believe constitutes a "substantial pattern or practice of specific bad faith intent to provide from the sale of trademark infringing domain names." Accordingly, they Skipped questions 8, 9 and 10 about how to make the TM-PDDRP better because they did not feel it was needed. Accordingly, of the 16 responses, 11 of them Did Not recommend Any Changes to the TM-PDDRP. That's an affirmative act. These are skilled members of our Community - Registries, Registrars, ccTLDs, IPC Members, Business Constituency (they responded with names and/or affiliations that you can see on the full survey results). They know how to ask for what they want and need. I don't think we need redo this survey, but I do think we need to analyze it -- the unconsolidated, detailed version. And then talk about mediation, consolidation, and a limitations period, issues that have been discussed extensively in our WG since the early days of our TM-PDDRP discussions. Full survey, All TM=PDDRP Survey Response from Community, attached. Also posted on our WG TM-PDDRP Wiki page at https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/Additional+Documents+and+Materials+on+the+TM-PDDRP<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fcommunity.icann.org%2Fdisplay%2FRARPMRIAGPWG%2FAdditional%2BDocuments%2Band%2BMaterials%2Bon%2Bthe%2BTM-PDDRP&data=01%7C01%7CBwinterfeldt%40mayerbrown.com%7C27fd33acc31b4eab3e5008d3f7702090%7C09131022b7854e6d8d42916975e51262%7C0&sdata=pQ3h1lAGVbS4WEi%2BiNwCNzulLLt1q6Fc0%2B6lSNLuAQE%3D&reserved=0> Best, Kathy On 10/18/2016 10:19 AM, Mary Wong wrote: Hello everyone, In light of a few questions that have been raised about the survey, staff hopes the following notes will be helpful: - The initial email solicitation that was sent to Supporting Organizations, Advisory Committees, Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies (SO/ACdid not specify a date by which the responses were expected, though a subsequent note mentioned mid-September, and we kept the survey open for some time after that date. - Question 1 of the survey asked for the respondent’s name and details (though they could choose not to provide them) – this isn’t reflected in the consolidated responses document, which starts from Question 2 (SO/AC/SG/C affiliation). - Not all respondents noted their SO/AC/SG/C affiliation (if any); of those that did, I believe we got responses from 1 Registries, 5 Registrars, 3 IPC, 2 BC, 1 ccNSO, and 1 At-Large member (if I recall correctly). Several respondents also answered that they represented trademark owners. - Certain questions were predicated on a “If your answer to the preceding question is Yes” basis; however, a respondent could choose to also provide examples and details even if they didn’t answer Yes to the previous question. Finally, the Working Group may recall that a few members volunteered several weeks ago to compile a Google Document comprising real/observed experiences with perceived registry behavior that they believe may come within the purview of the TM-PDDRP. That document has been circulated for a last review amongst the group of volunteers, and we hope to share it with the full Working Group after the call tomorrow, if not before. Perhaps the Working Group can review that document prior to deciding whether or not to recirculate the survey. We hope this information is of assistance. Cheers Mary On 10/18/16, 09:53, "gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Steve Levy"<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.orgonbehalfofSteveLevy> <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org on behalf of slevy@accentlawgroup.com><mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.orgonbehalfofslevy@accentlawgroup.com> wrote: +1 Brian On 10/18/16, 9:42 AM, "gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org on behalf of<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.orgonbehalfofWinterfeldt,BrianJ.> <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.orgonbehalfofWinterfeldt,BrianJ.> Winterfeldt, Brian J."<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.orgonbehalfofWinterfeldt,BrianJ.> <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org on behalf of<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.orgonbehalfofBWinterfeldt@mayerbrown.com> <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.orgonbehalfofBWinterfeldt@mayerbrown.com> BWinterfeldt@mayerbrown.com><mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.orgonbehalfofBWinterfeldt@mayerbrown.com> wrote: >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> >[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<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> >https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dwww.adobe.com-26data-3D01-257&d=DQIGog&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=Cb2kDBPqnWowtSuMWqQgGAWtVS5jFhKsGVayuIR35mg&s=Wv7WVFaA5vsdMzKGOFooBWnU4HPs409ptkDvJMwHoT0&e=<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.proofpoint.com%2Fv2%2Furl%3Fu%3Dhttps-3A__na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dwww.adobe.com-26data-3D01-257%26d%3DDQIGog%26c%3DFmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM%26r%3DDJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y%26m%3DCb2kDBPqnWowtSuMWqQgGAWtVS5jFhKsGVayuIR35mg%26s%3DWv7WVFaA5vsdMzKGOFooBWnU4HPs409ptkDvJMwHoT0%26e%3D&data=01%7C01%7CBwinterfeldt%40mayerbrown.com%7C27fd33acc31b4eab3e5008d3f7702090%7C09131022b7854e6d8d42916975e51262%7C0&sdata=zLLb%2FVBZG9HutBHC89hLf5jDfl22jvsZ%2FpTzQSDrA4U%3D&reserved=0> >C01%7CBwinterfeldt%40mayerbrown.com<http://40mayerbrown.com>%7Ccad701c35dc3416845bd08d3f759bebb%7C0 >9131022b7854e6d8d42916975e51262%7C0&sdata=FLB5lBUu8KJ452nIHswQDuHxLero4h40 >8S6BwADCfwk%3D&reserved=0 > > > > > > > > >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: >> >>https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dhttp-253A-252F-252Fmm.icann&d=DQIGog&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=Cb2kDBPqnWowtSuMWqQgGAWtVS5jFhKsGVayuIR35mg&s=JSrtf22S0lYp_TXvmmSkU2_yYDrUoKBZQ-q8_w3IKjk&e=<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.proofpoint.com%2Fv2%2Furl%3Fu%3Dhttps-3A__na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dhttp-253A-252F-252Fmm.icann%26d%3DDQIGog%26c%3DFmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM%26r%3DDJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y%26m%3DCb2kDBPqnWowtSuMWqQgGAWtVS5jFhKsGVayuIR35mg%26s%3DJSrtf22S0lYp_TXvmmSkU2_yYDrUoKBZQ-q8_w3IKjk%26e%3D&data=01%7C01%7CBwinterfeldt%40mayerbrown.com%7C27fd33acc31b4eab3e5008d3f7702090%7C09131022b7854e6d8d42916975e51262%7C0&sdata=KxwjUnzXqK4av%2Fvs9EvhDFJKxVp%2BQDH3OSFSWMYfUSc%3D&reserved=0> . >>org%2Fpipermail%2Fgnso-rpm-wg%2F2016-October%2F000685.html&data=01%7C01%7 >>CBwinterfeldt%40mayerbrown.com<http://40mayerbrown.com>%7Ccad701c35dc3416845bd08d3f759bebb%7C09131 >>022b7854e6d8d42916975e51262%7C0&sdata=VIUCDoME2%2FjmgMFmQqmykgl8zJEZJU6Ov >>zU%2FcwVRe%2Fs%3D&reserved=0 >> >>"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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dhttp-253A-252F-252Fwww.leap&d=DQIGog&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=Cb2kDBPqnWowtSuMWqQgGAWtVS5jFhKsGVayuIR35mg&s=cYA4KTitDA-lyJ_1Ip7sdCAxeO1Aks9SSGiLy8t61Q0&e=<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.proofpoint.com%2Fv2%2Furl%3Fu%3Dhttps-3A__na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dhttp-253A-252F-252Fwww.leap%26d%3DDQIGog%26c%3DFmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM%26r%3DDJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y%26m%3DCb2kDBPqnWowtSuMWqQgGAWtVS5jFhKsGVayuIR35mg%26s%3DcYA4KTitDA-lyJ_1Ip7sdCAxeO1Aks9SSGiLy8t61Q0%26e%3D&data=01%7C01%7CBwinterfeldt%40mayerbrown.com%7C27fd33acc31b4eab3e5008d3f7702090%7C09131022b7854e6d8d42916975e51262%7C0&sdata=7sROqrCg%2BdLh6jJjHkS8fQ%2FocHUs72%2B7x2zPf7P3PQ0%3D&reserved=0> . >>com%2F&data=01%7C01%7CBwinterfeldt%40mayerbrown.com<http://40mayerbrown.com>%7Ccad701c35dc3416845b >>d08d3f759bebb%7C09131022b7854e6d8d42916975e51262%7C0&sdata=tWfU%2BStelCVq >>yAuxWiUPXf1BS0BKBHUMUW1ztiwBJkY%3D&reserved=0 >> >> >> >>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> >>> >>>https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dwww.adobe.com-26data-3D01&d=DQIGog&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=Cb2kDBPqnWowtSuMWqQgGAWtVS5jFhKsGVayuIR35mg&s=fvhovw3o3b2LHI5FemyH8GoupbhL2hRClmUjF0lnYxk&e=<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.proofpoint.com%2Fv2%2Furl%3Fu%3Dhttps-3A__na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dwww.adobe.com-26data-3D01%26d%3DDQIGog%26c%3DFmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM%26r%3DDJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y%26m%3DCb2kDBPqnWowtSuMWqQgGAWtVS5jFhKsGVayuIR35mg%26s%3Dfvhovw3o3b2LHI5FemyH8GoupbhL2hRClmUjF0lnYxk%26e%3D&data=01%7C01%7CBwinterfeldt%40mayerbrown.com%7C27fd33acc31b4eab3e5008d3f7702090%7C09131022b7854e6d8d42916975e51262%7C0&sdata=dKzjMOAfWz%2FVylV1uVTiYFM0ste5tpjEJ5uxDp9QhiY%3D&reserved=0> >>>%7C01%7CBwinterfeldt%40mayerbrown.com<http://40mayerbrown.com>%7Ccad701c35dc3416845bd08d3f759bebb >>>%7C09131022b7854e6d8d42916975e51262%7C0&sdata=FLB5lBUu8KJ452nIHswQDuHxLe >>>ro4h408S6BwADCfwk%3D&reserved=0 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> 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 on behalf of icann@leap.com><mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.orgonbehalfoficann@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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dhttp-253A-252F-252Fwww.lea&d=DQIGog&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=Cb2kDBPqnWowtSuMWqQgGAWtVS5jFhKsGVayuIR35mg&s=CENzSQO-UItQAZFzgA4Ifp--PSIZhkJjki5JzxQbpXM&e=<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.proofpoint.com%2Fv2%2Furl%3Fu%3Dhttps-3A__na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dhttp-253A-252F-252Fwww.lea%26d%3DDQIGog%26c%3DFmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM%26r%3DDJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y%26m%3DCb2kDBPqnWowtSuMWqQgGAWtVS5jFhKsGVayuIR35mg%26s%3DCENzSQO-UItQAZFzgA4Ifp--PSIZhkJjki5JzxQbpXM%26e%3D&data=01%7C01%7CBwinterfeldt%40mayerbrown.com%7C27fd33acc31b4eab3e5008d3f7702090%7C09131022b7854e6d8d42916975e51262%7C0&sdata=H%2BZVM19Cm9FWiGDywuwOmHlWihPMSB9nL9IDSdeY6EY%3D&reserved=0> >>>>p.com<http://p.com>%2F&data=01%7C01%7CBwinterfeldt%40mayerbrown.com<http://40mayerbrown.com>%7Ccad701c35dc3416 >>>>845bd08d3f759bebb%7C09131022b7854e6d8d42916975e51262%7C0&sdata=tWfU%2BS >>>>telCVqyAuxWiUPXf1BS0BKBHUMUW1ztiwBJkY%3D&reserved=0 >>>> >>>> >>>>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> >>>>> >>>>>https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dwww.adobe.com-26data-3D&d=DQIGog&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=Cb2kDBPqnWowtSuMWqQgGAWtVS5jFhKsGVayuIR35mg&s=WWmZRfbYWC8h77-UrwmWK4CLhzfKqvi6VmmytPGE6OQ&e=<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.proofpoint.com%2Fv2%2Furl%3Fu%3Dhttps-3A__na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dwww.adobe.com-26data-3D%26d%3DDQIGog%26c%3DFmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM%26r%3DDJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y%26m%3DCb2kDBPqnWowtSuMWqQgGAWtVS5jFhKsGVayuIR35mg%26s%3DWWmZRfbYWC8h77-UrwmWK4CLhzfKqvi6VmmytPGE6OQ%26e%3D&data=01%7C01%7CBwinterfeldt%40mayerbrown.com%7C27fd33acc31b4eab3e5008d3f7702090%7C09131022b7854e6d8d42916975e51262%7C0&sdata=7Hku8BCQ5DtltwAUCxZgz1gHiw59x5wbT33GwSTfyFg%3D&reserved=0> >>>>>01%7C01%7CBwinterfeldt%40mayerbrown.com<http://40mayerbrown.com>%7Ccad701c35dc3416845bd08d3f759 >>>>>bebb%7C09131022b7854e6d8d42916975e51262%7C0&sdata=FLB5lBUu8KJ452nIHswQ >>>>>DuHxLero4h408S6BwADCfwk%3D&reserved=0 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 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 on behalf of icann@leap.com><mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.orgonbehalfoficann@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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dhttps-253A-252F-252Fwww&d=DQIGog&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=Cb2kDBPqnWowtSuMWqQgGAWtVS5jFhKsGVayuIR35mg&s=bAn0luLoLGcRRgPR3B60zmziY7y16bRJTQZYELVwjjM&e=<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.proofpoint.com%2Fv2%2Furl%3Fu%3Dhttps-3A__na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dhttps-253A-252F-252Fwww%26d%3DDQIGog%26c%3DFmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM%26r%3DDJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y%26m%3DCb2kDBPqnWowtSuMWqQgGAWtVS5jFhKsGVayuIR35mg%26s%3DbAn0luLoLGcRRgPR3B60zmziY7y16bRJTQZYELVwjjM%26e%3D&data=01%7C01%7CBwinterfeldt%40mayerbrown.com%7C27fd33acc31b4eab3e5008d3f7702090%7C09131022b7854e6d8d42916975e51262%7C0&sdata=MyJD6MQY63KdjYgxT07IlETJLL2UlS25mULYrIC8bg4%3D&reserved=0> . >>>>>>surveymonkey.com<http://surveymonkey.com>%2Fmp%2Ftour%2Fskiplogic%2F&data=01%7C01%7CBwinterfel >>>>>>dt%40mayerbrown.com<http://40mayerbrown.com>%7Ccad701c35dc3416845bd08d3f759bebb%7C09131022b785 >>>>>>4e6d8d42916975e51262%7C0&sdata=vl6Lhl21GVSzrgY1nnJklWCQxvJk%2FElc2yi9 >>>>>>flUzNx0%3D&reserved=0 >>>>>> >>>>>>Given the above, I'd place little weight on the results, either "for" >>>>>>something or "against" something. >>>>>> >>>>>>Sincerely, >>>>>> >>>>>>George Kirikos >>>>>>416-588-0269 >>>>>>https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dhttp-253A-252F-252Fwww.l&d=DQIGog&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=Cb2kDBPqnWowtSuMWqQgGAWtVS5jFhKsGVayuIR35mg&s=j8QIgHGA8iVduJZpOCzS-M7dunw3vjNpc4x4vKCQKrI&e=<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.proofpoint.com%2Fv2%2Furl%3Fu%3Dhttps-3A__na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dhttp-253A-252F-252Fwww.l%26d%3DDQIGog%26c%3DFmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM%26r%3DDJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y%26m%3DCb2kDBPqnWowtSuMWqQgGAWtVS5jFhKsGVayuIR35mg%26s%3Dj8QIgHGA8iVduJZpOCzS-M7dunw3vjNpc4x4vKCQKrI%26e%3D&data=01%7C01%7CBwinterfeldt%40mayerbrown.com%7C27fd33acc31b4eab3e5008d3f7702090%7C09131022b7854e6d8d42916975e51262%7C0&sdata=ZEWf9Ti8gaE4RceQrniL6QC%2F9FBjBXw08f%2FBNNLxpbA%3D&reserved=0> >>>>>>eap.com<http://eap.com>%2F&data=01%7C01%7CBwinterfeldt%40mayerbrown.com<http://40mayerbrown.com>%7Ccad701c35dc >>>>>>3416845bd08d3f759bebb%7C09131022b7854e6d8d42916975e51262%7C0&sdata=tW >>>>>>fU%2BStelCVqyAuxWiUPXf1BS0BKBHUMUW1ztiwBJkY%3D&reserved=0 >>>>>> >>>>>>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> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dwww.adobe.com-26dat&d=DQIGog&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=Cb2kDBPqnWowtSuMWqQgGAWtVS5jFhKsGVayuIR35mg&s=_HBcYonZABN5yLbgVU5ilIoslEz_mfS7tq7_I1eb67Q&e=<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.proofpoint.com%2Fv2%2Furl%3Fu%3Dhttps-3A__na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dwww.adobe.com-26dat%26d%3DDQIGog%26c%3DFmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM%26r%3DDJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y%26m%3DCb2kDBPqnWowtSuMWqQgGAWtVS5jFhKsGVayuIR35mg%26s%3D_HBcYonZABN5yLbgVU5ilIoslEz_mfS7tq7_I1eb67Q%26e%3D&data=01%7C01%7CBwinterfeldt%40mayerbrown.com%7C27fd33acc31b4eab3e5008d3f7702090%7C09131022b7854e6d8d42916975e51262%7C0&sdata=pI%2B3iYbztwENRMfqhWeZOo14LU6m5iVWrR%2B6ZuKcN4A%3D&reserved=0> >>>>>>>a=01%7C01%7CBwinterfeldt%40mayerbrown.com<http://40mayerbrown.com>%7Ccad701c35dc3416845bd08d3 >>>>>>>f759bebb%7C09131022b7854e6d8d42916975e51262%7C0&sdata=FLB5lBUu8KJ452 >>>>>>>nIHswQDuHxLero4h408S6BwADCfwk%3D&reserved=0 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dhttps-253A-252F-252Fcom&d=DQIGog&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=Cb2kDBPqnWowtSuMWqQgGAWtVS5jFhKsGVayuIR35mg&s=wJ0GasZYquK6q6dDUp8pKpydSvEdwpCh2jytVwsclZE&e=<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.proofpoint.com%2Fv2%2Furl%3Fu%3Dhttps-3A__na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dhttps-253A-252F-252Fcom%26d%3DDQIGog%26c%3DFmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM%26r%3DDJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y%26m%3DCb2kDBPqnWowtSuMWqQgGAWtVS5jFhKsGVayuIR35mg%26s%3DwJ0GasZYquK6q6dDUp8pKpydSvEdwpCh2jytVwsclZE%26e%3D&data=01%7C01%7CBwinterfeldt%40mayerbrown.com%7C27fd33acc31b4eab3e5008d3f7702090%7C09131022b7854e6d8d42916975e51262%7C0&sdata=WqUZbo7bDSu3sc7am8NGfEdKbXo%2BICFT54cVs76FsgY%3D&reserved=0> >>>>>>>munity.icann.org<http://munity.icann.org>%2Fx%2FugqsAw%5Bcommunity.icann.org<http://5Bcommunity.icann.org>&data=01%7C01%7CB >>>>>>>winterfeldt%40mayerbrown.com<http://40mayerbrown.com>%7Ccad701c35dc3416845bd08d3f759bebb%7C09 >>>>>>>131022b7854e6d8d42916975e51262%7C0&sdata=3AhE7D7sQ71PXkCT2Y4BBmXOIBM >>>>>>>%2FVXefpQnxZ8CnsKU%3D&reserved=0]. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dhttps-253A-252F-252Fmm&d=DQIGog&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=Cb2kDBPqnWowtSuMWqQgGAWtVS5jFhKsGVayuIR35mg&s=1ion1hFz1idaqbSlgmGom3KVhXwcLGJ-YX-h9DRxBzo&e=<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.proofpoint.com%2Fv2%2Furl%3Fu%3Dhttps-3A__na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dhttps-253A-252F-252Fmm%26d%3DDQIGog%26c%3DFmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM%26r%3DDJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y%26m%3DCb2kDBPqnWowtSuMWqQgGAWtVS5jFhKsGVayuIR35mg%26s%3D1ion1hFz1idaqbSlgmGom3KVhXwcLGJ-YX-h9DRxBzo%26e%3D&data=01%7C01%7CBwinterfeldt%40mayerbrown.com%7C27fd33acc31b4eab3e5008d3f7702090%7C09131022b7854e6d8d42916975e51262%7C0&sdata=ELp5dm0d1y33NQK0mx4kEiZgFQRPZG%2BuhV5KBZgKafo%3D&reserved=0> . >>>>>>>icann.org<http://icann.org>%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-rpm-wg&data=01%7C01%7CBwinterf >>>>>>>eldt%40mayerbrown.com<http://40mayerbrown.com>%7Ccad701c35dc3416845bd08d3f759bebb%7C09131022b >>>>>>>7854e6d8d42916975e51262%7C0&sdata=nNFktZrR2RCSn2zoMfdFLp1t2uvlKXPFI9 >>>>>>>PJ%2BbWKU5o%3D&reserved=0 >>>>>>_______________________________________________ >>>>>>gnso-rpm-wg mailing list >>>>>>gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> >>>>>>https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dhttps-253A-252F-252Fmm.i&d=DQIGog&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=Cb2kDBPqnWowtSuMWqQgGAWtVS5jFhKsGVayuIR35mg&s=sVQXkp4WFEIZNsn2wzZHauiSs1Ce96xSZnIcV0rlvzE&e=<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.proofpoint.com%2Fv2%2Furl%3Fu%3Dhttps-3A__na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dhttps-253A-252F-252Fmm.i%26d%3DDQIGog%26c%3DFmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM%26r%3DDJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y%26m%3DCb2kDBPqnWowtSuMWqQgGAWtVS5jFhKsGVayuIR35mg%26s%3DsVQXkp4WFEIZNsn2wzZHauiSs1Ce96xSZnIcV0rlvzE%26e%3D&data=01%7C01%7CBwinterfeldt%40mayerbrown.com%7C27fd33acc31b4eab3e5008d3f7702090%7C09131022b7854e6d8d42916975e51262%7C0&sdata=Mvl9llUxbQ%2BlVBnvKakhDdFAmQaNR8T8QbfWV%2BbLDaY%3D&reserved=0> >>>>>>cann.org<http://cann.org>%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-rpm-wg&data=01%7C01%7CBwinterfel >>>>>>dt%40mayerbrown.com<http://40mayerbrown.com>%7Ccad701c35dc3416845bd08d3f759bebb%7C09131022b785 >>>>>>4e6d8d42916975e51262%7C0&sdata=nNFktZrR2RCSn2zoMfdFLp1t2uvlKXPFI9PJ%2 >>>>>>BbWKU5o%3D&reserved=0 >>>>> >>>>_______________________________________________ >>>>gnso-rpm-wg mailing list >>>>gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> >>>>https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dhttps-253A-252F-252Fmm.ica&d=DQIGog&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=Cb2kDBPqnWowtSuMWqQgGAWtVS5jFhKsGVayuIR35mg&s=Wj7HHRtY0M7XOufzUcXG8ocEA9vKS2tCl00_mk1bh5E&e=<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.proofpoint.com%2Fv2%2Furl%3Fu%3Dhttps-3A__na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dhttps-253A-252F-252Fmm.ica%26d%3DDQIGog%26c%3DFmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM%26r%3DDJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y%26m%3DCb2kDBPqnWowtSuMWqQgGAWtVS5jFhKsGVayuIR35mg%26s%3DWj7HHRtY0M7XOufzUcXG8ocEA9vKS2tCl00_mk1bh5E%26e%3D&data=01%7C01%7CBwinterfeldt%40mayerbrown.com%7C27fd33acc31b4eab3e5008d3f7702090%7C09131022b7854e6d8d42916975e51262%7C0&sdata=MFTT%2FKwwqTHJlRMlS5jLHBRntmHA%2Bd1AeTkJQSK9J6k%3D&reserved=0> >>>>nn.org<http://nn.org>%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-rpm-wg&data=01%7C01%7CBwinterfeldt%4 >>>>0mayerbrown.com<http://0mayerbrown.com>%7Ccad701c35dc3416845bd08d3f759bebb%7C09131022b7854e6d8d >>>>42916975e51262%7C0&sdata=nNFktZrR2RCSn2zoMfdFLp1t2uvlKXPFI9PJ%2BbWKU5o% >>>>3D&reserved=0 >>> > >_______________________________________________ >gnso-rpm-wg mailing list >gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> >https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dhttps-253A-252F-252Fmm.icann&d=DQIGog&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=Cb2kDBPqnWowtSuMWqQgGAWtVS5jFhKsGVayuIR35mg&s=yzZ1h1cepbWa2xl03oaOavWIGr8YEelFoAU7x_RcPe0&e=<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.proofpoint.com%2Fv2%2Furl%3Fu%3Dhttps-3A__na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dhttps-253A-252F-252Fmm.icann%26d%3DDQIGog%26c%3DFmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM%26r%3DDJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y%26m%3DCb2kDBPqnWowtSuMWqQgGAWtVS5jFhKsGVayuIR35mg%26s%3DyzZ1h1cepbWa2xl03oaOavWIGr8YEelFoAU7x_RcPe0%26e%3D&data=01%7C01%7CBwinterfeldt%40mayerbrown.com%7C27fd33acc31b4eab3e5008d3f7702090%7C09131022b7854e6d8d42916975e51262%7C0&sdata=AgUkWoJggWLJu5ryTdz0VjnV9jZFVjVrtK7NXaQt2QI%3D&reserved=0> . >org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-rpm-wg&data=01%7C01%7CBwinterfeldt%40mayer >brown.com<http://brown.com>%7Ccad701c35dc3416845bd08d3f759bebb%7C09131022b7854e6d8d42916975e >51262%7C0&sdata=nNFktZrR2RCSn2zoMfdFLp1t2uvlKXPFI9PJ%2BbWKU5o%3D&reserved= >0 >__________________________________________________________________________ > > >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<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> >https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-rpm-wg&data=01%7C01%7CBwinterfeldt%40mayerbrown.com%7C27fd33acc31b4eab3e5008d3f7702090%7C09131022b7854e6d8d42916975e51262%7C0&sdata=n5nWRdJ5luGCpAXmfq95u4ePGW4oAT6wXydjwpqSDlo%3D&reserved=0> _______________________________________________ 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<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-rpm-wg&data=01%7C01%7CBwinterfeldt%40mayerbrown.com%7C27fd33acc31b4eab3e5008d3f7702090%7C09131022b7854e6d8d42916975e51262%7C0&sdata=n5nWRdJ5luGCpAXmfq95u4ePGW4oAT6wXydjwpqSDlo%3D&reserved=0> _______________________________________________ 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<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-rpm-wg&data=01%7C01%7CBwinterfeldt%40mayerbrown.com%7C27fd33acc31b4eab3e5008d3f7702090%7C09131022b7854e6d8d42916975e51262%7C0&sdata=n5nWRdJ5luGCpAXmfq95u4ePGW4oAT6wXydjwpqSDlo%3D&reserved=0> _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto: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.
I also agree with Lori. It's also important to note that the vast majority of the PPSAI comments came from a form set up by proponents of a particular result. It's not analogous. Kiran Malancharuvil Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138 (m) Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos. On Oct 18, 2016, at 10:10 AM, Winterfeldt, Brian J. <BWinterfeldt@mayerbrown.com<mailto:BWinterfeldt@mayerbrown.com>> wrote: +1 to Lori's comments. Brian J. Winterfeldt Co-Head of Global Brand Management and Internet Practice Mayer Brown LLP bwinterfeldt@mayerbrown.com<mailto:bwinterfeldt@mayerbrown.com> 1999 K Street, NW<x-apple-data-detectors://2/2> Washington, DC 20006-1101<x-apple-data-detectors://2/2> 202.263.3284<tel:202.263.3284> direct dial 202.830.0330<tel:202.830.0330> fax 1221 Avenue of the Americas<x-apple-data-detectors://3/0> New York, New York 10020-1001<x-apple-data-detectors://3/0> 212.506.2345<tel:212.506.2345> direct dial On Oct 18, 2016, at 12:02 PM, Lori Schulman <lschulman@inta.org<mailto:lschulman@inta.org>> wrote: Dear Kathy, I agree about looking at the raw details of the survey but I disagree with the PPSAI analogy. That was fundamentally different in that it was a grass roots campaign whose respondents went well beyond the typical participants in the ICANN community and that had a pre written, suggested response in the nature of a form letter. The PDDRP survey required much more thought, effort, detail and a true working knowledge of the industry. The PPSAI survey did not. They are not the same and think is unfair to compare the 2 responses. Lori Lori S. Schulman Senior Director, Internet Policy International Trademark Association (INTA) +1-202-704-0408, Skype: lsschulman 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: Tuesday, October 18, 2016 11:30 AM To: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] A few clarifications on the TM-PDDRP Community Survey All, I am underwhelmed by this survey response. I believe the ICANN Community knows how to respond when it wants to (e.g., we received 10,000 responses to our call for public comment in the Proxy/Privacy Accreditation (PPSAI) WG and one of them had thousands of signatories). I think that this survey suffers from its consolidation. I urge everyone to read the full, short 11 pages of the unedited, unrefined survey results. Some communities did not respond at all (and I can speak for my community that there was no groundswell of interest in change, so we did not respond). Of those who Did Response, most (2:1) wrote with us that they have NOT seen "conduct by new gTLD registry operators" that they believe constitutes a "substantial pattern or practice of specific bad faith intent to provide from the sale of trademark infringing domain names." Accordingly, they Skipped questions 8, 9 and 10 about how to make the TM-PDDRP better because they did not feel it was needed. Accordingly, of the 16 responses, 11 of them Did Not recommend Any Changes to the TM-PDDRP. That's an affirmative act. These are skilled members of our Community - Registries, Registrars, ccTLDs, IPC Members, Business Constituency (they responded with names and/or affiliations that you can see on the full survey results). They know how to ask for what they want and need. I don't think we need redo this survey, but I do think we need to analyze it -- the unconsolidated, detailed version. And then talk about mediation, consolidation, and a limitations period, issues that have been discussed extensively in our WG since the early days of our TM-PDDRP discussions. Full survey, All TM=PDDRP Survey Response from Community, attached. Also posted on our WG TM-PDDRP Wiki page at https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/Additional+Documents+and+Materials+on+the+TM-PDDRP<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fcommunity.icann.org%2Fdisplay%2FRARPMRIAGPWG%2FAdditional%2BDocuments%2Band%2BMaterials%2Bon%2Bthe%2BTM-PDDRP&data=01%7C01%7CBwinterfeldt%40mayerbrown.com%7C27fd33acc31b4eab3e5008d3f7702090%7C09131022b7854e6d8d42916975e51262%7C0&sdata=pQ3h1lAGVbS4WEi%2BiNwCNzulLLt1q6Fc0%2B6lSNLuAQE%3D&reserved=0> Best, Kathy On 10/18/2016 10:19 AM, Mary Wong wrote: Hello everyone, In light of a few questions that have been raised about the survey, staff hopes the following notes will be helpful: - The initial email solicitation that was sent to Supporting Organizations, Advisory Committees, Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies (SO/ACdid not specify a date by which the responses were expected, though a subsequent note mentioned mid-September, and we kept the survey open for some time after that date. - Question 1 of the survey asked for the respondent’s name and details (though they could choose not to provide them) – this isn’t reflected in the consolidated responses document, which starts from Question 2 (SO/AC/SG/C affiliation). - Not all respondents noted their SO/AC/SG/C affiliation (if any); of those that did, I believe we got responses from 1 Registries, 5 Registrars, 3 IPC, 2 BC, 1 ccNSO, and 1 At-Large member (if I recall correctly). Several respondents also answered that they represented trademark owners. - Certain questions were predicated on a “If your answer to the preceding question is Yes” basis; however, a respondent could choose to also provide examples and details even if they didn’t answer Yes to the previous question. Finally, the Working Group may recall that a few members volunteered several weeks ago to compile a Google Document comprising real/observed experiences with perceived registry behavior that they believe may come within the purview of the TM-PDDRP. That document has been circulated for a last review amongst the group of volunteers, and we hope to share it with the full Working Group after the call tomorrow, if not before. Perhaps the Working Group can review that document prior to deciding whether or not to recirculate the survey. We hope this information is of assistance. Cheers Mary On 10/18/16, 09:53, "gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Steve Levy"<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.orgonbehalfofSteveLevy> <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org on behalf of slevy@accentlawgroup.com><mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.orgonbehalfofslevy@accentlawgroup.com> wrote: +1 Brian On 10/18/16, 9:42 AM, "gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org on behalf of<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.orgonbehalfofWinterfeldt,BrianJ.> <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.orgonbehalfofWinterfeldt,BrianJ.> Winterfeldt, Brian J."<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.orgonbehalfofWinterfeldt,BrianJ.> <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org on behalf of<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.orgonbehalfofBWinterfeldt@mayerbrown.com> <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.orgonbehalfofBWinterfeldt@mayerbrown.com> BWinterfeldt@mayerbrown.com><mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.orgonbehalfofBWinterfeldt@mayerbrown.com> wrote: >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> >[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<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> >https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dwww.adobe.com-26data-3D01-257&d=DQIGog&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=Cb2kDBPqnWowtSuMWqQgGAWtVS5jFhKsGVayuIR35mg&s=Wv7WVFaA5vsdMzKGOFooBWnU4HPs409ptkDvJMwHoT0&e=<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.proofpoint.com%2Fv2%2Furl%3Fu%3Dhttps-3A__na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dwww.adobe.com-26data-3D01-257%26d%3DDQIGog%26c%3DFmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM%26r%3DDJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y%26m%3DCb2kDBPqnWowtSuMWqQgGAWtVS5jFhKsGVayuIR35mg%26s%3DWv7WVFaA5vsdMzKGOFooBWnU4HPs409ptkDvJMwHoT0%26e%3D&data=01%7C01%7CBwinterfeldt%40mayerbrown.com%7C27fd33acc31b4eab3e5008d3f7702090%7C09131022b7854e6d8d42916975e51262%7C0&sdata=zLLb%2FVBZG9HutBHC89hLf5jDfl22jvsZ%2FpTzQSDrA4U%3D&reserved=0> >C01%7CBwinterfeldt%40mayerbrown.com<http://40mayerbrown.com>%7Ccad701c35dc3416845bd08d3f759bebb%7C0 >9131022b7854e6d8d42916975e51262%7C0&sdata=FLB5lBUu8KJ452nIHswQDuHxLero4h40 >8S6BwADCfwk%3D&reserved=0 > > > > > > > > >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: >> >>https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dhttp-253A-252F-252Fmm.icann&d=DQIGog&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=Cb2kDBPqnWowtSuMWqQgGAWtVS5jFhKsGVayuIR35mg&s=JSrtf22S0lYp_TXvmmSkU2_yYDrUoKBZQ-q8_w3IKjk&e=<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.proofpoint.com%2Fv2%2Furl%3Fu%3Dhttps-3A__na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dhttp-253A-252F-252Fmm.icann%26d%3DDQIGog%26c%3DFmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM%26r%3DDJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y%26m%3DCb2kDBPqnWowtSuMWqQgGAWtVS5jFhKsGVayuIR35mg%26s%3DJSrtf22S0lYp_TXvmmSkU2_yYDrUoKBZQ-q8_w3IKjk%26e%3D&data=01%7C01%7CBwinterfeldt%40mayerbrown.com%7C27fd33acc31b4eab3e5008d3f7702090%7C09131022b7854e6d8d42916975e51262%7C0&sdata=KxwjUnzXqK4av%2Fvs9EvhDFJKxVp%2BQDH3OSFSWMYfUSc%3D&reserved=0> . >>org%2Fpipermail%2Fgnso-rpm-wg%2F2016-October%2F000685.html&data=01%7C01%7 >>CBwinterfeldt%40mayerbrown.com<http://40mayerbrown.com>%7Ccad701c35dc3416845bd08d3f759bebb%7C09131 >>022b7854e6d8d42916975e51262%7C0&sdata=VIUCDoME2%2FjmgMFmQqmykgl8zJEZJU6Ov >>zU%2FcwVRe%2Fs%3D&reserved=0 >> >>"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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dhttp-253A-252F-252Fwww.leap&d=DQIGog&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=Cb2kDBPqnWowtSuMWqQgGAWtVS5jFhKsGVayuIR35mg&s=cYA4KTitDA-lyJ_1Ip7sdCAxeO1Aks9SSGiLy8t61Q0&e=<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.proofpoint.com%2Fv2%2Furl%3Fu%3Dhttps-3A__na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dhttp-253A-252F-252Fwww.leap%26d%3DDQIGog%26c%3DFmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM%26r%3DDJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y%26m%3DCb2kDBPqnWowtSuMWqQgGAWtVS5jFhKsGVayuIR35mg%26s%3DcYA4KTitDA-lyJ_1Ip7sdCAxeO1Aks9SSGiLy8t61Q0%26e%3D&data=01%7C01%7CBwinterfeldt%40mayerbrown.com%7C27fd33acc31b4eab3e5008d3f7702090%7C09131022b7854e6d8d42916975e51262%7C0&sdata=7sROqrCg%2BdLh6jJjHkS8fQ%2FocHUs72%2B7x2zPf7P3PQ0%3D&reserved=0> . >>com%2F&data=01%7C01%7CBwinterfeldt%40mayerbrown.com<http://40mayerbrown.com>%7Ccad701c35dc3416845b >>d08d3f759bebb%7C09131022b7854e6d8d42916975e51262%7C0&sdata=tWfU%2BStelCVq >>yAuxWiUPXf1BS0BKBHUMUW1ztiwBJkY%3D&reserved=0 >> >> >> >>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> >>> >>>https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dwww.adobe.com-26data-3D01&d=DQIGog&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=Cb2kDBPqnWowtSuMWqQgGAWtVS5jFhKsGVayuIR35mg&s=fvhovw3o3b2LHI5FemyH8GoupbhL2hRClmUjF0lnYxk&e=<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.proofpoint.com%2Fv2%2Furl%3Fu%3Dhttps-3A__na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dwww.adobe.com-26data-3D01%26d%3DDQIGog%26c%3DFmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM%26r%3DDJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y%26m%3DCb2kDBPqnWowtSuMWqQgGAWtVS5jFhKsGVayuIR35mg%26s%3Dfvhovw3o3b2LHI5FemyH8GoupbhL2hRClmUjF0lnYxk%26e%3D&data=01%7C01%7CBwinterfeldt%40mayerbrown.com%7C27fd33acc31b4eab3e5008d3f7702090%7C09131022b7854e6d8d42916975e51262%7C0&sdata=dKzjMOAfWz%2FVylV1uVTiYFM0ste5tpjEJ5uxDp9QhiY%3D&reserved=0> >>>%7C01%7CBwinterfeldt%40mayerbrown.com<http://40mayerbrown.com>%7Ccad701c35dc3416845bd08d3f759bebb >>>%7C09131022b7854e6d8d42916975e51262%7C0&sdata=FLB5lBUu8KJ452nIHswQDuHxLe >>>ro4h408S6BwADCfwk%3D&reserved=0 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> 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 on behalf of icann@leap.com><mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.orgonbehalfoficann@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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dhttp-253A-252F-252Fwww.lea&d=DQIGog&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=Cb2kDBPqnWowtSuMWqQgGAWtVS5jFhKsGVayuIR35mg&s=CENzSQO-UItQAZFzgA4Ifp--PSIZhkJjki5JzxQbpXM&e=<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.proofpoint.com%2Fv2%2Furl%3Fu%3Dhttps-3A__na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dhttp-253A-252F-252Fwww.lea%26d%3DDQIGog%26c%3DFmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM%26r%3DDJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y%26m%3DCb2kDBPqnWowtSuMWqQgGAWtVS5jFhKsGVayuIR35mg%26s%3DCENzSQO-UItQAZFzgA4Ifp--PSIZhkJjki5JzxQbpXM%26e%3D&data=01%7C01%7CBwinterfeldt%40mayerbrown.com%7C27fd33acc31b4eab3e5008d3f7702090%7C09131022b7854e6d8d42916975e51262%7C0&sdata=H%2BZVM19Cm9FWiGDywuwOmHlWihPMSB9nL9IDSdeY6EY%3D&reserved=0> >>>>p.com<http://p.com>%2F&data=01%7C01%7CBwinterfeldt%40mayerbrown.com<http://40mayerbrown.com>%7Ccad701c35dc3416 >>>>845bd08d3f759bebb%7C09131022b7854e6d8d42916975e51262%7C0&sdata=tWfU%2BS >>>>telCVqyAuxWiUPXf1BS0BKBHUMUW1ztiwBJkY%3D&reserved=0 >>>> >>>> >>>>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> >>>>> >>>>>https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dwww.adobe.com-26data-3D&d=DQIGog&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=Cb2kDBPqnWowtSuMWqQgGAWtVS5jFhKsGVayuIR35mg&s=WWmZRfbYWC8h77-UrwmWK4CLhzfKqvi6VmmytPGE6OQ&e=<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.proofpoint.com%2Fv2%2Furl%3Fu%3Dhttps-3A__na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dwww.adobe.com-26data-3D%26d%3DDQIGog%26c%3DFmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM%26r%3DDJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y%26m%3DCb2kDBPqnWowtSuMWqQgGAWtVS5jFhKsGVayuIR35mg%26s%3DWWmZRfbYWC8h77-UrwmWK4CLhzfKqvi6VmmytPGE6OQ%26e%3D&data=01%7C01%7CBwinterfeldt%40mayerbrown.com%7C27fd33acc31b4eab3e5008d3f7702090%7C09131022b7854e6d8d42916975e51262%7C0&sdata=7Hku8BCQ5DtltwAUCxZgz1gHiw59x5wbT33GwSTfyFg%3D&reserved=0> >>>>>01%7C01%7CBwinterfeldt%40mayerbrown.com<http://40mayerbrown.com>%7Ccad701c35dc3416845bd08d3f759 >>>>>bebb%7C09131022b7854e6d8d42916975e51262%7C0&sdata=FLB5lBUu8KJ452nIHswQ >>>>>DuHxLero4h408S6BwADCfwk%3D&reserved=0 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 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 on behalf of icann@leap.com><mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.orgonbehalfoficann@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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dhttps-253A-252F-252Fwww&d=DQIGog&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=Cb2kDBPqnWowtSuMWqQgGAWtVS5jFhKsGVayuIR35mg&s=bAn0luLoLGcRRgPR3B60zmziY7y16bRJTQZYELVwjjM&e=<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.proofpoint.com%2Fv2%2Furl%3Fu%3Dhttps-3A__na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dhttps-253A-252F-252Fwww%26d%3DDQIGog%26c%3DFmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM%26r%3DDJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y%26m%3DCb2kDBPqnWowtSuMWqQgGAWtVS5jFhKsGVayuIR35mg%26s%3DbAn0luLoLGcRRgPR3B60zmziY7y16bRJTQZYELVwjjM%26e%3D&data=01%7C01%7CBwinterfeldt%40mayerbrown.com%7C27fd33acc31b4eab3e5008d3f7702090%7C09131022b7854e6d8d42916975e51262%7C0&sdata=MyJD6MQY63KdjYgxT07IlETJLL2UlS25mULYrIC8bg4%3D&reserved=0> . >>>>>>surveymonkey.com<http://surveymonkey.com>%2Fmp%2Ftour%2Fskiplogic%2F&data=01%7C01%7CBwinterfel >>>>>>dt%40mayerbrown.com<http://40mayerbrown.com>%7Ccad701c35dc3416845bd08d3f759bebb%7C09131022b785 >>>>>>4e6d8d42916975e51262%7C0&sdata=vl6Lhl21GVSzrgY1nnJklWCQxvJk%2FElc2yi9 >>>>>>flUzNx0%3D&reserved=0 >>>>>> >>>>>>Given the above, I'd place little weight on the results, either "for" >>>>>>something or "against" something. >>>>>> >>>>>>Sincerely, >>>>>> >>>>>>George Kirikos >>>>>>416-588-0269 >>>>>>https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dhttp-253A-252F-252Fwww.l&d=DQIGog&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=Cb2kDBPqnWowtSuMWqQgGAWtVS5jFhKsGVayuIR35mg&s=j8QIgHGA8iVduJZpOCzS-M7dunw3vjNpc4x4vKCQKrI&e=<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.proofpoint.com%2Fv2%2Furl%3Fu%3Dhttps-3A__na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dhttp-253A-252F-252Fwww.l%26d%3DDQIGog%26c%3DFmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM%26r%3DDJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y%26m%3DCb2kDBPqnWowtSuMWqQgGAWtVS5jFhKsGVayuIR35mg%26s%3Dj8QIgHGA8iVduJZpOCzS-M7dunw3vjNpc4x4vKCQKrI%26e%3D&data=01%7C01%7CBwinterfeldt%40mayerbrown.com%7C27fd33acc31b4eab3e5008d3f7702090%7C09131022b7854e6d8d42916975e51262%7C0&sdata=ZEWf9Ti8gaE4RceQrniL6QC%2F9FBjBXw08f%2FBNNLxpbA%3D&reserved=0> >>>>>>eap.com<http://eap.com>%2F&data=01%7C01%7CBwinterfeldt%40mayerbrown.com<http://40mayerbrown.com>%7Ccad701c35dc >>>>>>3416845bd08d3f759bebb%7C09131022b7854e6d8d42916975e51262%7C0&sdata=tW >>>>>>fU%2BStelCVqyAuxWiUPXf1BS0BKBHUMUW1ztiwBJkY%3D&reserved=0 >>>>>> >>>>>>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> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dwww.adobe.com-26dat&d=DQIGog&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=Cb2kDBPqnWowtSuMWqQgGAWtVS5jFhKsGVayuIR35mg&s=_HBcYonZABN5yLbgVU5ilIoslEz_mfS7tq7_I1eb67Q&e=<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.proofpoint.com%2Fv2%2Furl%3Fu%3Dhttps-3A__na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dwww.adobe.com-26dat%26d%3DDQIGog%26c%3DFmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM%26r%3DDJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y%26m%3DCb2kDBPqnWowtSuMWqQgGAWtVS5jFhKsGVayuIR35mg%26s%3D_HBcYonZABN5yLbgVU5ilIoslEz_mfS7tq7_I1eb67Q%26e%3D&data=01%7C01%7CBwinterfeldt%40mayerbrown.com%7C27fd33acc31b4eab3e5008d3f7702090%7C09131022b7854e6d8d42916975e51262%7C0&sdata=pI%2B3iYbztwENRMfqhWeZOo14LU6m5iVWrR%2B6ZuKcN4A%3D&reserved=0> >>>>>>>a=01%7C01%7CBwinterfeldt%40mayerbrown.com<http://40mayerbrown.com>%7Ccad701c35dc3416845bd08d3 >>>>>>>f759bebb%7C09131022b7854e6d8d42916975e51262%7C0&sdata=FLB5lBUu8KJ452 >>>>>>>nIHswQDuHxLero4h408S6BwADCfwk%3D&reserved=0 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dhttps-253A-252F-252Fcom&d=DQIGog&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=Cb2kDBPqnWowtSuMWqQgGAWtVS5jFhKsGVayuIR35mg&s=wJ0GasZYquK6q6dDUp8pKpydSvEdwpCh2jytVwsclZE&e=<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.proofpoint.com%2Fv2%2Furl%3Fu%3Dhttps-3A__na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dhttps-253A-252F-252Fcom%26d%3DDQIGog%26c%3DFmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM%26r%3DDJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y%26m%3DCb2kDBPqnWowtSuMWqQgGAWtVS5jFhKsGVayuIR35mg%26s%3DwJ0GasZYquK6q6dDUp8pKpydSvEdwpCh2jytVwsclZE%26e%3D&data=01%7C01%7CBwinterfeldt%40mayerbrown.com%7C27fd33acc31b4eab3e5008d3f7702090%7C09131022b7854e6d8d42916975e51262%7C0&sdata=WqUZbo7bDSu3sc7am8NGfEdKbXo%2BICFT54cVs76FsgY%3D&reserved=0> >>>>>>>munity.icann.org<http://munity.icann.org>%2Fx%2FugqsAw%5Bcommunity.icann.org<http://5Bcommunity.icann.org>&data=01%7C01%7CB >>>>>>>winterfeldt%40mayerbrown.com<http://40mayerbrown.com>%7Ccad701c35dc3416845bd08d3f759bebb%7C09 >>>>>>>131022b7854e6d8d42916975e51262%7C0&sdata=3AhE7D7sQ71PXkCT2Y4BBmXOIBM >>>>>>>%2FVXefpQnxZ8CnsKU%3D&reserved=0]. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dhttps-253A-252F-252Fmm&d=DQIGog&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=Cb2kDBPqnWowtSuMWqQgGAWtVS5jFhKsGVayuIR35mg&s=1ion1hFz1idaqbSlgmGom3KVhXwcLGJ-YX-h9DRxBzo&e=<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.proofpoint.com%2Fv2%2Furl%3Fu%3Dhttps-3A__na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dhttps-253A-252F-252Fmm%26d%3DDQIGog%26c%3DFmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM%26r%3DDJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y%26m%3DCb2kDBPqnWowtSuMWqQgGAWtVS5jFhKsGVayuIR35mg%26s%3D1ion1hFz1idaqbSlgmGom3KVhXwcLGJ-YX-h9DRxBzo%26e%3D&data=01%7C01%7CBwinterfeldt%40mayerbrown.com%7C27fd33acc31b4eab3e5008d3f7702090%7C09131022b7854e6d8d42916975e51262%7C0&sdata=ELp5dm0d1y33NQK0mx4kEiZgFQRPZG%2BuhV5KBZgKafo%3D&reserved=0> . >>>>>>>icann.org<http://icann.org>%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-rpm-wg&data=01%7C01%7CBwinterf >>>>>>>eldt%40mayerbrown.com<http://40mayerbrown.com>%7Ccad701c35dc3416845bd08d3f759bebb%7C09131022b >>>>>>>7854e6d8d42916975e51262%7C0&sdata=nNFktZrR2RCSn2zoMfdFLp1t2uvlKXPFI9 >>>>>>>PJ%2BbWKU5o%3D&reserved=0 >>>>>>_______________________________________________ >>>>>>gnso-rpm-wg mailing list >>>>>>gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> >>>>>>https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dhttps-253A-252F-252Fmm.i&d=DQIGog&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=Cb2kDBPqnWowtSuMWqQgGAWtVS5jFhKsGVayuIR35mg&s=sVQXkp4WFEIZNsn2wzZHauiSs1Ce96xSZnIcV0rlvzE&e=<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.proofpoint.com%2Fv2%2Furl%3Fu%3Dhttps-3A__na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dhttps-253A-252F-252Fmm.i%26d%3DDQIGog%26c%3DFmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM%26r%3DDJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y%26m%3DCb2kDBPqnWowtSuMWqQgGAWtVS5jFhKsGVayuIR35mg%26s%3DsVQXkp4WFEIZNsn2wzZHauiSs1Ce96xSZnIcV0rlvzE%26e%3D&data=01%7C01%7CBwinterfeldt%40mayerbrown.com%7C27fd33acc31b4eab3e5008d3f7702090%7C09131022b7854e6d8d42916975e51262%7C0&sdata=Mvl9llUxbQ%2BlVBnvKakhDdFAmQaNR8T8QbfWV%2BbLDaY%3D&reserved=0> >>>>>>cann.org<http://cann.org>%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-rpm-wg&data=01%7C01%7CBwinterfel >>>>>>dt%40mayerbrown.com<http://40mayerbrown.com>%7Ccad701c35dc3416845bd08d3f759bebb%7C09131022b785 >>>>>>4e6d8d42916975e51262%7C0&sdata=nNFktZrR2RCSn2zoMfdFLp1t2uvlKXPFI9PJ%2 >>>>>>BbWKU5o%3D&reserved=0 >>>>> >>>>_______________________________________________ >>>>gnso-rpm-wg mailing list >>>>gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> >>>>https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dhttps-253A-252F-252Fmm.ica&d=DQIGog&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=Cb2kDBPqnWowtSuMWqQgGAWtVS5jFhKsGVayuIR35mg&s=Wj7HHRtY0M7XOufzUcXG8ocEA9vKS2tCl00_mk1bh5E&e=<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.proofpoint.com%2Fv2%2Furl%3Fu%3Dhttps-3A__na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dhttps-253A-252F-252Fmm.ica%26d%3DDQIGog%26c%3DFmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM%26r%3DDJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y%26m%3DCb2kDBPqnWowtSuMWqQgGAWtVS5jFhKsGVayuIR35mg%26s%3DWj7HHRtY0M7XOufzUcXG8ocEA9vKS2tCl00_mk1bh5E%26e%3D&data=01%7C01%7CBwinterfeldt%40mayerbrown.com%7C27fd33acc31b4eab3e5008d3f7702090%7C09131022b7854e6d8d42916975e51262%7C0&sdata=MFTT%2FKwwqTHJlRMlS5jLHBRntmHA%2Bd1AeTkJQSK9J6k%3D&reserved=0> >>>>nn.org<http://nn.org>%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-rpm-wg&data=01%7C01%7CBwinterfeldt%4 >>>>0mayerbrown.com<http://0mayerbrown.com>%7Ccad701c35dc3416845bd08d3f759bebb%7C09131022b7854e6d8d >>>>42916975e51262%7C0&sdata=nNFktZrR2RCSn2zoMfdFLp1t2uvlKXPFI9PJ%2BbWKU5o% >>>>3D&reserved=0 >>> > >_______________________________________________ >gnso-rpm-wg mailing list >gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> >https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dhttps-253A-252F-252Fmm.icann&d=DQIGog&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=Cb2kDBPqnWowtSuMWqQgGAWtVS5jFhKsGVayuIR35mg&s=yzZ1h1cepbWa2xl03oaOavWIGr8YEelFoAU7x_RcPe0&e=<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.proofpoint.com%2Fv2%2Furl%3Fu%3Dhttps-3A__na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dhttps-253A-252F-252Fmm.icann%26d%3DDQIGog%26c%3DFmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM%26r%3DDJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y%26m%3DCb2kDBPqnWowtSuMWqQgGAWtVS5jFhKsGVayuIR35mg%26s%3DyzZ1h1cepbWa2xl03oaOavWIGr8YEelFoAU7x_RcPe0%26e%3D&data=01%7C01%7CBwinterfeldt%40mayerbrown.com%7C27fd33acc31b4eab3e5008d3f7702090%7C09131022b7854e6d8d42916975e51262%7C0&sdata=AgUkWoJggWLJu5ryTdz0VjnV9jZFVjVrtK7NXaQt2QI%3D&reserved=0> . >org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-rpm-wg&data=01%7C01%7CBwinterfeldt%40mayer >brown.com<http://brown.com>%7Ccad701c35dc3416845bd08d3f759bebb%7C09131022b7854e6d8d42916975e >51262%7C0&sdata=nNFktZrR2RCSn2zoMfdFLp1t2uvlKXPFI9PJ%2BbWKU5o%3D&reserved= >0 >__________________________________________________________________________ > > >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<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> >https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-rpm-wg&data=01%7C01%7CBwinterfeldt%40mayerbrown.com%7C27fd33acc31b4eab3e5008d3f7702090%7C09131022b7854e6d8d42916975e51262%7C0&sdata=n5nWRdJ5luGCpAXmfq95u4ePGW4oAT6wXydjwpqSDlo%3D&reserved=0> _______________________________________________ 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<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-rpm-wg&data=01%7C01%7CBwinterfeldt%40mayerbrown.com%7C27fd33acc31b4eab3e5008d3f7702090%7C09131022b7854e6d8d42916975e51262%7C0&sdata=n5nWRdJ5luGCpAXmfq95u4ePGW4oAT6wXydjwpqSDlo%3D&reserved=0> _______________________________________________ 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<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-rpm-wg&data=01%7C01%7CBwinterfeldt%40mayerbrown.com%7C27fd33acc31b4eab3e5008d3f7702090%7C09131022b7854e6d8d42916975e51262%7C0&sdata=n5nWRdJ5luGCpAXmfq95u4ePGW4oAT6wXydjwpqSDlo%3D&reserved=0> _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
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: Tuesday, October 18, 2016 11:30 AM To: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] A few clarifications on the TM-PDDRP Community Survey All, I am underwhelmed by this survey response. I believe the ICANN Community knows how to respond when it wants to (e.g., we received 10,000 responses to our call for public comment in the Proxy/Privacy Accreditation (PPSAI) WG and one of them had thousands of signatories). I think that this survey suffers from its consolidation. I urge everyone to read the full, short 11 pages of the unedited, unrefined survey results. Some communities did not respond at all (and I can speak for my community that there was no groundswell of interest in change, so we did not respond). Of those who Did Response, most (2:1) wrote with us that they have NOT seen "conduct by new gTLD registry operators" that they believe constitutes a "substantial pattern or practice of specific bad faith intent to provide from the sale of trademark infringing domain names." Accordingly, they Skipped questions 8, 9 and 10 about how to make the TM-PDDRP better because they did not feel it was needed. Accordingly, of the 16 responses, 11 of them Did Not recommend Any Changes to the TM-PDDRP. That's an affirmative act. These are skilled members of our Community - Registries, Registrars, ccTLDs, IPC Members, Business Constituency (they responded with names and/or affiliations that you can see on the full survey results). They know how to ask for what they want and need. I don't think we need redo this survey, but I do think we need to analyze it -- the unconsolidated, detailed version. And then talk about mediation, consolidation, and a limitations period, issues that have been discussed extensively in our WG since the early days of our TM-PDDRP discussions. Full survey, All TM=PDDRP Survey Response from Community, attached. Also posted on our WG TM-PDDRP Wiki page at https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/Additional+Documents+and+Ma... Best, Kathy On 10/18/2016 10:19 AM, Mary Wong wrote: Hello everyone, In light of a few questions that have been raised about the survey, staff hopes the following notes will be helpful: - The initial email solicitation that was sent to Supporting Organizations, Advisory Committees, Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies (SO/ACdid not specify a date by which the responses were expected, though a subsequent note mentioned mid-September, and we kept the survey open for some time after that date. - Question 1 of the survey asked for the respondent’s name and details (though they could choose not to provide them) – this isn’t reflected in the consolidated responses document, which starts from Question 2 (SO/AC/SG/C affiliation). - Not all respondents noted their SO/AC/SG/C affiliation (if any); of those that did, I believe we got responses from 1 Registries, 5 Registrars, 3 IPC, 2 BC, 1 ccNSO, and 1 At-Large member (if I recall correctly). Several respondents also answered that they represented trademark owners. - Certain questions were predicated on a “If your answer to the preceding question is Yes” basis; however, a respondent could choose to also provide examples and details even if they didn’t answer Yes to the previous question. Finally, the Working Group may recall that a few members volunteered several weeks ago to compile a Google Document comprising real/observed experiences with perceived registry behavior that they believe may come within the purview of the TM-PDDRP. That document has been circulated for a last review amongst the group of volunteers, and we hope to share it with the full Working Group after the call tomorrow, if not before. Perhaps the Working Group can review that document prior to deciding whether or not to recirculate the survey. We hope this information is of assistance. Cheers Mary On 10/18/16, 09:53, "gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Steve Levy"<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.orgonbehalfofSteveLevy> <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org on behalf of slevy@accentlawgroup.com><mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.orgonbehalfofslevy@accentlawgroup.com> wrote: +1 Brian On 10/18/16, 9:42 AM, "gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org on behalf of<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.orgonbehalfofWinterfeldt,BrianJ.> <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.orgonbehalfofWinterfeldt,BrianJ.> Winterfeldt, Brian J."<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.orgonbehalfofWinterfeldt,BrianJ.> <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org on behalf of<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.orgonbehalfofBWinterfeldt@mayerbrown.com> <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.orgonbehalfofBWinterfeldt@mayerbrown.com> BWinterfeldt@mayerbrown.com><mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.orgonbehalfofBWinterfeldt@mayerbrown.com> wrote: >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> >[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<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> >https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.protecti... >C01%7CBwinterfeldt%40mayerbrown.com%7Ccad701c35dc3416845bd08d3f759bebb%7C0 >9131022b7854e6d8d42916975e51262%7C0&sdata=FLB5lBUu8KJ452nIHswQDuHxLero4h40 >8S6BwADCfwk%3D&reserved=0 > > > > > > > > >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: >> >>https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.protecti... . >>org%2Fpipermail%2Fgnso-rpm-wg%2F2016-October%2F000685.html&data=01%7C01%7 >>CBwinterfeldt%40mayerbrown.com%7Ccad701c35dc3416845bd08d3f759bebb%7C09131 >>022b7854e6d8d42916975e51262%7C0&sdata=VIUCDoME2%2FjmgMFmQqmykgl8zJEZJU6Ov >>zU%2FcwVRe%2Fs%3D&reserved=0 >> >>"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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.protecti... . >>com%2F&data=01%7C01%7CBwinterfeldt%40mayerbrown.com%7Ccad701c35dc3416845b >>d08d3f759bebb%7C09131022b7854e6d8d42916975e51262%7C0&sdata=tWfU%2BStelCVq >>yAuxWiUPXf1BS0BKBHUMUW1ztiwBJkY%3D&reserved=0 >> >> >> >>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> >>> >>>https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.protecti... >>>%7C01%7CBwinterfeldt%40mayerbrown.com%7Ccad701c35dc3416845bd08d3f759bebb >>>%7C09131022b7854e6d8d42916975e51262%7C0&sdata=FLB5lBUu8KJ452nIHswQDuHxLe >>>ro4h408S6BwADCfwk%3D&reserved=0 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> 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 on behalf of icann@leap.com><mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.orgonbehalfoficann@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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.protecti... >>>>p.com%2F&data=01%7C01%7CBwinterfeldt%40mayerbrown.com%7Ccad701c35dc3416 >>>>845bd08d3f759bebb%7C09131022b7854e6d8d42916975e51262%7C0&sdata=tWfU%2BS >>>>telCVqyAuxWiUPXf1BS0BKBHUMUW1ztiwBJkY%3D&reserved=0 >>>> >>>> >>>>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> >>>>> >>>>>https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.protecti... >>>>>01%7C01%7CBwinterfeldt%40mayerbrown.com%7Ccad701c35dc3416845bd08d3f759 >>>>>bebb%7C09131022b7854e6d8d42916975e51262%7C0&sdata=FLB5lBUu8KJ452nIHswQ >>>>>DuHxLero4h408S6BwADCfwk%3D&reserved=0 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 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 on behalf of icann@leap.com><mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.orgonbehalfoficann@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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.protecti... . >>>>>>surveymonkey.com%2Fmp%2Ftour%2Fskiplogic%2F&data=01%7C01%7CBwinterfel >>>>>>dt%40mayerbrown.com%7Ccad701c35dc3416845bd08d3f759bebb%7C09131022b785 >>>>>>4e6d8d42916975e51262%7C0&sdata=vl6Lhl21GVSzrgY1nnJklWCQxvJk%2FElc2yi9 >>>>>>flUzNx0%3D&reserved=0 >>>>>> >>>>>>Given the above, I'd place little weight on the results, either "for" >>>>>>something or "against" something. >>>>>> >>>>>>Sincerely, >>>>>> >>>>>>George Kirikos >>>>>>416-588-0269 >>>>>>https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.protecti... >>>>>>eap.com%2F&data=01%7C01%7CBwinterfeldt%40mayerbrown.com%7Ccad701c35dc >>>>>>3416845bd08d3f759bebb%7C09131022b7854e6d8d42916975e51262%7C0&sdata=tW >>>>>>fU%2BStelCVqyAuxWiUPXf1BS0BKBHUMUW1ztiwBJkY%3D&reserved=0 >>>>>> >>>>>>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> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.protecti... >>>>>>>a=01%7C01%7CBwinterfeldt%40mayerbrown.com%7Ccad701c35dc3416845bd08d3 >>>>>>>f759bebb%7C09131022b7854e6d8d42916975e51262%7C0&sdata=FLB5lBUu8KJ452 >>>>>>>nIHswQDuHxLero4h408S6BwADCfwk%3D&reserved=0 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.protecti... >>>>>>>munity.icann.org%2Fx%2FugqsAw%5Bcommunity.icann.org&data=01%7C01%7CB >>>>>>>winterfeldt%40mayerbrown.com%7Ccad701c35dc3416845bd08d3f759bebb%7C09 >>>>>>>131022b7854e6d8d42916975e51262%7C0&sdata=3AhE7D7sQ71PXkCT2Y4BBmXOIBM >>>>>>>%2FVXefpQnxZ8CnsKU%3D&reserved=0]. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.protecti... . >>>>>>>icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-rpm-wg&data=01%7C01%7CBwinterf >>>>>>>eldt%40mayerbrown.com%7Ccad701c35dc3416845bd08d3f759bebb%7C09131022b >>>>>>>7854e6d8d42916975e51262%7C0&sdata=nNFktZrR2RCSn2zoMfdFLp1t2uvlKXPFI9 >>>>>>>PJ%2BbWKU5o%3D&reserved=0 >>>>>>_______________________________________________ >>>>>>gnso-rpm-wg mailing list >>>>>>gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> >>>>>>https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.protecti... >>>>>>cann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-rpm-wg&data=01%7C01%7CBwinterfel >>>>>>dt%40mayerbrown.com%7Ccad701c35dc3416845bd08d3f759bebb%7C09131022b785 >>>>>>4e6d8d42916975e51262%7C0&sdata=nNFktZrR2RCSn2zoMfdFLp1t2uvlKXPFI9PJ%2 >>>>>>BbWKU5o%3D&reserved=0 >>>>> >>>>_______________________________________________ >>>>gnso-rpm-wg mailing list >>>>gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> >>>>https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.protecti... >>>>nn.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-rpm-wg&data=01%7C01%7CBwinterfeldt%4 >>>>0mayerbrown.com%7Ccad701c35dc3416845bd08d3f759bebb%7C09131022b7854e6d8d >>>>42916975e51262%7C0&sdata=nNFktZrR2RCSn2zoMfdFLp1t2uvlKXPFI9PJ%2BbWKU5o% >>>>3D&reserved=0 >>> > >_______________________________________________ >gnso-rpm-wg mailing list >gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> >https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.protecti... . >org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-rpm-wg&data=01%7C01%7CBwinterfeldt%40mayer >brown.com%7Ccad701c35dc3416845bd08d3f759bebb%7C09131022b7854e6d8d42916975e >51262%7C0&sdata=nNFktZrR2RCSn2zoMfdFLp1t2uvlKXPFI9PJ%2BbWKU5o%3D&reserved= >0 >__________________________________________________________________________ > > >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<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 guess I am confused. I thought George’s point was the survey sample was too small to draw any conclusions. However, unless I am wrong, it appears that you are saying that even though small, if we analyze the results as you suggest, we come to the conclusion that no changes are being requested or are warranted. So, if the survey supports (as you suggest) that no action should be taken, then it is legitimate and a good sample? Seems to intellectually dishonest. It either IS a credible survey or it IS NOT a credible survey. 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 Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>> Date: Tuesday, October 18, 2016 at 8:30 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] A few clarifications on the TM-PDDRP Community Survey All, I am underwhelmed by this survey response. I believe the ICANN Community knows how to respond when it wants to (e.g., we received 10,000 responses to our call for public comment in the Proxy/Privacy Accreditation (PPSAI) WG and one of them had thousands of signatories). I think that this survey suffers from its consolidation. I urge everyone to read the full, short 11 pages of the unedited, unrefined survey results. Some communities did not respond at all (and I can speak for my community that there was no groundswell of interest in change, so we did not respond). Of those who Did Response, most (2:1) wrote with us that they have NOT seen "conduct by new gTLD registry operators" that they believe constitutes a "substantial pattern or practice of specific bad faith intent to provide from the sale of trademark infringing domain names." Accordingly, they Skipped questions 8, 9 and 10 about how to make the TM-PDDRP better because they did not feel it was needed. Accordingly, of the 16 responses, 11 of them Did Not recommend Any Changes to the TM-PDDRP. That's an affirmative act. These are skilled members of our Community - Registries, Registrars, ccTLDs, IPC Members, Business Constituency (they responded with names and/or affiliations that you can see on the full survey results). They know how to ask for what they want and need. I don't think we need redo this survey, but I do think we need to analyze it -- the unconsolidated, detailed version. And then talk about mediation, consolidation, and a limitations period, issues that have been discussed extensively in our WG since the early days of our TM-PDDRP discussions. Full survey, All TM=PDDRP Survey Response from Community, attached. Also posted on our WG TM-PDDRP Wiki page at https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/Additional+Documents+and+Ma... Best, Kathy On 10/18/2016 10:19 AM, Mary Wong wrote: Hello everyone, In light of a few questions that have been raised about the survey, staff hopes the following notes will be helpful: - The initial email solicitation that was sent to Supporting Organizations, Advisory Committees, Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies (SO/ACdid not specify a date by which the responses were expected, though a subsequent note mentioned mid-September, and we kept the survey open for some time after that date. - Question 1 of the survey asked for the respondent’s name and details (though they could choose not to provide them) – this isn’t reflected in the consolidated responses document, which starts from Question 2 (SO/AC/SG/C affiliation). - Not all respondents noted their SO/AC/SG/C affiliation (if any); of those that did, I believe we got responses from 1 Registries, 5 Registrars, 3 IPC, 2 BC, 1 ccNSO, and 1 At-Large member (if I recall correctly). Several respondents also answered that they represented trademark owners. - Certain questions were predicated on a “If your answer to the preceding question is Yes” basis; however, a respondent could choose to also provide examples and details even if they didn’t answer Yes to the previous question. Finally, the Working Group may recall that a few members volunteered several weeks ago to compile a Google Document comprising real/observed experiences with perceived registry behavior that they believe may come within the purview of the TM-PDDRP. That document has been circulated for a last review amongst the group of volunteers, and we hope to share it with the full Working Group after the call tomorrow, if not before. Perhaps the Working Group can review that document prior to deciding whether or not to recirculate the survey. We hope this information is of assistance. Cheers Mary On 10/18/16, 09:53, "gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Steve Levy"<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.orgonbehalfofSteveLevy> <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org on behalf of slevy@accentlawgroup.com><mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.orgonbehalfofslevy@accentlawgroup.com> wrote: +1 Brian On 10/18/16, 9:42 AM, "gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Winterfeldt, Brian J."<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.orgonbehalfofWinterfeldt,BrianJ.> <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org on behalf of BWinterfeldt@mayerbrown.com><mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.orgonbehalfofBWinterfeldt@mayerbrown.com> wrote: >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> >[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<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> >https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.protecti... >C01%7CBwinterfeldt%40mayerbrown.com%7Ccad701c35dc3416845bd08d3f759bebb%7C0 >9131022b7854e6d8d42916975e51262%7C0&sdata=FLB5lBUu8KJ452nIHswQDuHxLero4h40 >8S6BwADCfwk%3D&reserved=0 > > > > > > > > >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: >> >>https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.protecti... . >>org%2Fpipermail%2Fgnso-rpm-wg%2F2016-October%2F000685.html&data=01%7C01%7 >>CBwinterfeldt%40mayerbrown.com%7Ccad701c35dc3416845bd08d3f759bebb%7C09131 >>022b7854e6d8d42916975e51262%7C0&sdata=VIUCDoME2%2FjmgMFmQqmykgl8zJEZJU6Ov >>zU%2FcwVRe%2Fs%3D&reserved=0 >> >>"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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.protecti... . >>com%2F&data=01%7C01%7CBwinterfeldt%40mayerbrown.com%7Ccad701c35dc3416845b >>d08d3f759bebb%7C09131022b7854e6d8d42916975e51262%7C0&sdata=tWfU%2BStelCVq >>yAuxWiUPXf1BS0BKBHUMUW1ztiwBJkY%3D&reserved=0 >> >> >> >>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> >>> >>>https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.protecti... >>>%7C01%7CBwinterfeldt%40mayerbrown.com%7Ccad701c35dc3416845bd08d3f759bebb >>>%7C09131022b7854e6d8d42916975e51262%7C0&sdata=FLB5lBUu8KJ452nIHswQDuHxLe >>>ro4h408S6BwADCfwk%3D&reserved=0 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> 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 on behalf of icann@leap.com><mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.orgonbehalfoficann@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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.protecti... >>>>p.com%2F&data=01%7C01%7CBwinterfeldt%40mayerbrown.com%7Ccad701c35dc3416 >>>>845bd08d3f759bebb%7C09131022b7854e6d8d42916975e51262%7C0&sdata=tWfU%2BS >>>>telCVqyAuxWiUPXf1BS0BKBHUMUW1ztiwBJkY%3D&reserved=0 >>>> >>>> >>>>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> >>>>> >>>>>https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.protecti... >>>>>01%7C01%7CBwinterfeldt%40mayerbrown.com%7Ccad701c35dc3416845bd08d3f759 >>>>>bebb%7C09131022b7854e6d8d42916975e51262%7C0&sdata=FLB5lBUu8KJ452nIHswQ >>>>>DuHxLero4h408S6BwADCfwk%3D&reserved=0 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 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 on behalf of icann@leap.com><mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.orgonbehalfoficann@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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.protecti... . >>>>>>surveymonkey.com%2Fmp%2Ftour%2Fskiplogic%2F&data=01%7C01%7CBwinterfel >>>>>>dt%40mayerbrown.com%7Ccad701c35dc3416845bd08d3f759bebb%7C09131022b785 >>>>>>4e6d8d42916975e51262%7C0&sdata=vl6Lhl21GVSzrgY1nnJklWCQxvJk%2FElc2yi9 >>>>>>flUzNx0%3D&reserved=0 >>>>>> >>>>>>Given the above, I'd place little weight on the results, either "for" >>>>>>something or "against" something. >>>>>> >>>>>>Sincerely, >>>>>> >>>>>>George Kirikos >>>>>>416-588-0269 >>>>>>https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.protecti... >>>>>>eap.com%2F&data=01%7C01%7CBwinterfeldt%40mayerbrown.com%7Ccad701c35dc >>>>>>3416845bd08d3f759bebb%7C09131022b7854e6d8d42916975e51262%7C0&sdata=tW >>>>>>fU%2BStelCVqyAuxWiUPXf1BS0BKBHUMUW1ztiwBJkY%3D&reserved=0 >>>>>> >>>>>>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> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.protecti... >>>>>>>a=01%7C01%7CBwinterfeldt%40mayerbrown.com%7Ccad701c35dc3416845bd08d3 >>>>>>>f759bebb%7C09131022b7854e6d8d42916975e51262%7C0&sdata=FLB5lBUu8KJ452 >>>>>>>nIHswQDuHxLero4h408S6BwADCfwk%3D&reserved=0 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.protecti... >>>>>>>munity.icann.org%2Fx%2FugqsAw%5Bcommunity.icann.org&data=01%7C01%7CB >>>>>>>winterfeldt%40mayerbrown.com%7Ccad701c35dc3416845bd08d3f759bebb%7C09 >>>>>>>131022b7854e6d8d42916975e51262%7C0&sdata=3AhE7D7sQ71PXkCT2Y4BBmXOIBM >>>>>>>%2FVXefpQnxZ8CnsKU%3D&reserved=0]. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.protecti... . >>>>>>>icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-rpm-wg&data=01%7C01%7CBwinterf >>>>>>>eldt%40mayerbrown.com%7Ccad701c35dc3416845bd08d3f759bebb%7C09131022b >>>>>>>7854e6d8d42916975e51262%7C0&sdata=nNFktZrR2RCSn2zoMfdFLp1t2uvlKXPFI9 >>>>>>>PJ%2BbWKU5o%3D&reserved=0 >>>>>>_______________________________________________ >>>>>>gnso-rpm-wg mailing list >>>>>>gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> >>>>>>https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.protecti... >>>>>>cann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-rpm-wg&data=01%7C01%7CBwinterfel >>>>>>dt%40mayerbrown.com%7Ccad701c35dc3416845bd08d3f759bebb%7C09131022b785 >>>>>>4e6d8d42916975e51262%7C0&sdata=nNFktZrR2RCSn2zoMfdFLp1t2uvlKXPFI9PJ%2 >>>>>>BbWKU5o%3D&reserved=0 >>>>> >>>>_______________________________________________ >>>>gnso-rpm-wg mailing list >>>>gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> >>>>https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.protecti... >>>>nn.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-rpm-wg&data=01%7C01%7CBwinterfeldt%4 >>>>0mayerbrown.com%7Ccad701c35dc3416845bd08d3f759bebb%7C09131022b7854e6d8d >>>>42916975e51262%7C0&sdata=nNFktZrR2RCSn2zoMfdFLp1t2uvlKXPFI9PJ%2BbWKU5o% >>>>3D&reserved=0 >>> > >_______________________________________________ >gnso-rpm-wg mailing list >gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> >https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.protecti... . >org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-rpm-wg&data=01%7C01%7CBwinterfeldt%40mayer >brown.com%7Ccad701c35dc3416845bd08d3f759bebb%7C09131022b7854e6d8d42916975e >51262%7C0&sdata=nNFktZrR2RCSn2zoMfdFLp1t2uvlKXPFI9PJ%2BbWKU5o%3D&reserved= >0 >__________________________________________________________________________ > > >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<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
+1 David W. Maher Public Interest Registry Senior Vice-President – Law & Policy +1 312 375 4849 From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kathy Kleiman Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2016 10:30 AM To: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] A few clarifications on the TM-PDDRP Community Survey All, I am underwhelmed by this survey response. I believe the ICANN Community knows how to respond when it wants to (e.g., we received 10,000 responses to our call for public comment in the Proxy/Privacy Accreditation (PPSAI) WG and one of them had thousands of signatories). I think that this survey suffers from its consolidation. I urge everyone to read the full, short 11 pages of the unedited, unrefined survey results. Some communities did not respond at all (and I can speak for my community that there was no groundswell of interest in change, so we did not respond). Of those who Did Response, most (2:1) wrote with us that they have NOT seen "conduct by new gTLD registry operators" that they believe constitutes a "substantial pattern or practice of specific bad faith intent to provide from the sale of trademark infringing domain names." Accordingly, they Skipped questions 8, 9 and 10 about how to make the TM-PDDRP better because they did not feel it was needed. Accordingly, of the 16 responses, 11 of them Did Not recommend Any Changes to the TM-PDDRP. That's an affirmative act. These are skilled members of our Community - Registries, Registrars, ccTLDs, IPC Members, Business Constituency (they responded with names and/or affiliations that you can see on the full survey results). They know how to ask for what they want and need. I don't think we need redo this survey, but I do think we need to analyze it -- the unconsolidated, detailed version. And then talk about mediation, consolidation, and a limitations period, issues that have been discussed extensively in our WG since the early days of our TM-PDDRP discussions. Full survey, All TM=PDDRP Survey Response from Community, attached. Also posted on our WG TM-PDDRP Wiki page at https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/Additional+Documents+and+Ma... Best, Kathy On 10/18/2016 10:19 AM, Mary Wong wrote: Hello everyone, In light of a few questions that have been raised about the survey, staff hopes the following notes will be helpful: - The initial email solicitation that was sent to Supporting Organizations, Advisory Committees, Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies (SO/ACdid not specify a date by which the responses were expected, though a subsequent note mentioned mid-September, and we kept the survey open for some time after that date. - Question 1 of the survey asked for the respondent’s name and details (though they could choose not to provide them) – this isn’t reflected in the consolidated responses document, which starts from Question 2 (SO/AC/SG/C affiliation). - Not all respondents noted their SO/AC/SG/C affiliation (if any); of those that did, I believe we got responses from 1 Registries, 5 Registrars, 3 IPC, 2 BC, 1 ccNSO, and 1 At-Large member (if I recall correctly). Several respondents also answered that they represented trademark owners. - Certain questions were predicated on a “If your answer to the preceding question is Yes” basis; however, a respondent could choose to also provide examples and details even if they didn’t answer Yes to the previous question. Finally, the Working Group may recall that a few members volunteered several weeks ago to compile a Google Document comprising real/observed experiences with perceived registry behavior that they believe may come within the purview of the TM-PDDRP. That document has been circulated for a last review amongst the group of volunteers, and we hope to share it with the full Working Group after the call tomorrow, if not before. Perhaps the Working Group can review that document prior to deciding whether or not to recirculate the survey. We hope this information is of assistance. Cheers Mary On 10/18/16, 09:53, "gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Steve Levy"<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.orgonbehalfofSteveLevy> <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org on behalf of slevy@accentlawgroup.com><mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.orgonbehalfofslevy@accentlawgroup.com> wrote: +1 Brian On 10/18/16, 9:42 AM, "gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org on behalf of<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.orgonbehalfofWinterfeldt,BrianJ.> <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.orgonbehalfofWinterfeldt,BrianJ.> Winterfeldt, Brian J."<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.orgonbehalfofWinterfeldt,BrianJ.> <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org on behalf of<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.orgonbehalfofBWinterfeldt@mayerbrown.com> <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.orgonbehalfofBWinterfeldt@mayerbrown.com> BWinterfeldt@mayerbrown.com><mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.orgonbehalfofBWinterfeldt@mayerbrown.com> wrote: >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> >[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<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> >https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.protecti... >C01%7CBwinterfeldt%40mayerbrown.com%7Ccad701c35dc3416845bd08d3f759bebb%7C0 >9131022b7854e6d8d42916975e51262%7C0&sdata=FLB5lBUu8KJ452nIHswQDuHxLero4h40 >8S6BwADCfwk%3D&reserved=0 > > > > > > > > >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: >> >>https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.protecti... . >>org%2Fpipermail%2Fgnso-rpm-wg%2F2016-October%2F000685.html&data=01%7C01%7 >>CBwinterfeldt%40mayerbrown.com%7Ccad701c35dc3416845bd08d3f759bebb%7C09131 >>022b7854e6d8d42916975e51262%7C0&sdata=VIUCDoME2%2FjmgMFmQqmykgl8zJEZJU6Ov >>zU%2FcwVRe%2Fs%3D&reserved=0 >> >>"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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.protecti... . >>com%2F&data=01%7C01%7CBwinterfeldt%40mayerbrown.com%7Ccad701c35dc3416845b >>d08d3f759bebb%7C09131022b7854e6d8d42916975e51262%7C0&sdata=tWfU%2BStelCVq >>yAuxWiUPXf1BS0BKBHUMUW1ztiwBJkY%3D&reserved=0 >> >> >> >>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> >>> >>>https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.protecti... >>>%7C01%7CBwinterfeldt%40mayerbrown.com%7Ccad701c35dc3416845bd08d3f759bebb >>>%7C09131022b7854e6d8d42916975e51262%7C0&sdata=FLB5lBUu8KJ452nIHswQDuHxLe >>>ro4h408S6BwADCfwk%3D&reserved=0 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> 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 on behalf of icann@leap.com><mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.orgonbehalfoficann@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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.protecti... >>>>p.com%2F&data=01%7C01%7CBwinterfeldt%40mayerbrown.com%7Ccad701c35dc3416 >>>>845bd08d3f759bebb%7C09131022b7854e6d8d42916975e51262%7C0&sdata=tWfU%2BS >>>>telCVqyAuxWiUPXf1BS0BKBHUMUW1ztiwBJkY%3D&reserved=0 >>>> >>>> >>>>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> >>>>> >>>>>https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.protecti... >>>>>01%7C01%7CBwinterfeldt%40mayerbrown.com%7Ccad701c35dc3416845bd08d3f759 >>>>>bebb%7C09131022b7854e6d8d42916975e51262%7C0&sdata=FLB5lBUu8KJ452nIHswQ >>>>>DuHxLero4h408S6BwADCfwk%3D&reserved=0 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 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 on behalf of icann@leap.com><mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.orgonbehalfoficann@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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.protecti... . >>>>>>surveymonkey.com%2Fmp%2Ftour%2Fskiplogic%2F&data=01%7C01%7CBwinterfel >>>>>>dt%40mayerbrown.com%7Ccad701c35dc3416845bd08d3f759bebb%7C09131022b785 >>>>>>4e6d8d42916975e51262%7C0&sdata=vl6Lhl21GVSzrgY1nnJklWCQxvJk%2FElc2yi9 >>>>>>flUzNx0%3D&reserved=0 >>>>>> >>>>>>Given the above, I'd place little weight on the results, either "for" >>>>>>something or "against" something. >>>>>> >>>>>>Sincerely, >>>>>> >>>>>>George Kirikos >>>>>>416-588-0269 >>>>>>https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.protecti... >>>>>>eap.com%2F&data=01%7C01%7CBwinterfeldt%40mayerbrown.com%7Ccad701c35dc >>>>>>3416845bd08d3f759bebb%7C09131022b7854e6d8d42916975e51262%7C0&sdata=tW >>>>>>fU%2BStelCVqyAuxWiUPXf1BS0BKBHUMUW1ztiwBJkY%3D&reserved=0 >>>>>> >>>>>>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> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.protecti... >>>>>>>a=01%7C01%7CBwinterfeldt%40mayerbrown.com%7Ccad701c35dc3416845bd08d3 >>>>>>>f759bebb%7C09131022b7854e6d8d42916975e51262%7C0&sdata=FLB5lBUu8KJ452 >>>>>>>nIHswQDuHxLero4h408S6BwADCfwk%3D&reserved=0 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.protecti... >>>>>>>munity.icann.org%2Fx%2FugqsAw%5Bcommunity.icann.org&data=01%7C01%7CB >>>>>>>winterfeldt%40mayerbrown.com%7Ccad701c35dc3416845bd08d3f759bebb%7C09 >>>>>>>131022b7854e6d8d42916975e51262%7C0&sdata=3AhE7D7sQ71PXkCT2Y4BBmXOIBM >>>>>>>%2FVXefpQnxZ8CnsKU%3D&reserved=0]. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.protecti... . >>>>>>>icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-rpm-wg&data=01%7C01%7CBwinterf >>>>>>>eldt%40mayerbrown.com%7Ccad701c35dc3416845bd08d3f759bebb%7C09131022b >>>>>>>7854e6d8d42916975e51262%7C0&sdata=nNFktZrR2RCSn2zoMfdFLp1t2uvlKXPFI9 >>>>>>>PJ%2BbWKU5o%3D&reserved=0 >>>>>>_______________________________________________ >>>>>>gnso-rpm-wg mailing list >>>>>>gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> >>>>>>https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.protecti... >>>>>>cann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-rpm-wg&data=01%7C01%7CBwinterfel >>>>>>dt%40mayerbrown.com%7Ccad701c35dc3416845bd08d3f759bebb%7C09131022b785 >>>>>>4e6d8d42916975e51262%7C0&sdata=nNFktZrR2RCSn2zoMfdFLp1t2uvlKXPFI9PJ%2 >>>>>>BbWKU5o%3D&reserved=0 >>>>> >>>>_______________________________________________ >>>>gnso-rpm-wg mailing list >>>>gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> >>>>https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.protecti... >>>>nn.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-rpm-wg&data=01%7C01%7CBwinterfeldt%4 >>>>0mayerbrown.com%7Ccad701c35dc3416845bd08d3f759bebb%7C09131022b7854e6d8d >>>>42916975e51262%7C0&sdata=nNFktZrR2RCSn2zoMfdFLp1t2uvlKXPFI9PJ%2BbWKU5o% >>>>3D&reserved=0 >>> > >_______________________________________________ >gnso-rpm-wg mailing list >gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> >https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.protecti... . >org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-rpm-wg&data=01%7C01%7CBwinterfeldt%40mayer >brown.com%7Ccad701c35dc3416845bd08d3f759bebb%7C09131022b7854e6d8d42916975e >51262%7C0&sdata=nNFktZrR2RCSn2zoMfdFLp1t2uvlKXPFI9PJ%2BbWKU5o%3D&reserved= >0 >__________________________________________________________________________ > > >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<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 took a moment to "dig in" to the raw survey results that Kathy linked to on the wiki (might need to rename the file with a .pdf extension to open it, depending on your operating system). There were 16 responses, and here's who responded: PDDRP Survey Responses: * 1. Jon Nevett, Donuts, RySG 2. Emily Taylor, Netistrar, RrSG * 3. Mike Rodenbaugh, IPC 4. http://whois.domaintools.com/168.94.245.24, Best Buy? 5. Chris Chaplow, BC 6. http://whois.domaintools.com/63.234.145.99, Endurance, RrSG 7. Damon Ashcraft, Snell & Wilmer, IPC 8. Jonathan Cohen, Shapiro Cohen, IPC 9. Michael Zoebisch, rwzh (law firm), MARQUES * 10. Denise Michel, Facebook, BC 11. http://whois.domaintools.com/202.11.16.148, Japan Registry Service?, ccNSO 12. Mark Urban, At-Large 13. http://whois.domaintools.com/37.99.193.59, someone in Greece?, RrSG * 14. Theo Gurts, Realtime Register, RrSG 15. Rob Golding, Astutium, RrSG 16. SafeBrands, RrSG * = already member of this PDP (see https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=58729950 for PDP participants) Oddly, 4 of the survey responses were from folks who are already members of this PDP. I was under the impression that we were going to have the survey as part of "outreach", to hear from folks who aren't already in this PDP. If we go back to the July 27, 2016 chat transcript, there was talk of doing outreach to large brandowners (e.g. on Interbrand list, Forbes list of top brands, or those owning large portfolios of domains; i.e. the ones most likely to experience abuse, and thus potentially use the PDDRP; I can't remember if we said it orally, but even reaching out to the largest filers of UDRPs, e.g. Lego, etc.). Usually we have the situation where there's a small working group, and a large universe of stakeholders not in the working group. Surveys are designed to help ensure that the small minority in the working group considers what that larger universe is experiencing, etc. Perhaps it's the case that no one really cares about the PDDRP (i.e. "small universe of stakeholders"), and anyone that does care is already a member of this very large working group! I don't know if ICANN has any data/stats scientists on staff, but it's clear that if we are going to do surveys, we need to do a lot better. Perhaps even budgeting for it properly (e.g. a lot of money spent on new gTLD "consumer awareness" surveys). This survey was extremely short -- perhaps it could have been done by directed outgoing telephone outreach to those big brand owners, or top 100 IP law firms or top 50 registrars, or anything to get a large (statistically significant) sample of voices/input beyond our own working group participants. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 11:30 AM, Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com> wrote:
All, I am underwhelmed by this survey response. I believe the ICANN Community knows how to respond when it wants to (e.g., we received 10,000 responses to our call for public comment in the Proxy/Privacy Accreditation (PPSAI) WG and one of them had thousands of signatories).
I think that this survey suffers from its consolidation. I urge everyone to read the full, short 11 pages of the unedited, unrefined survey results. Some communities did not respond at all (and I can speak for my community that there was no groundswell of interest in change, so we did not respond).
Of those who Did Response, most (2:1) wrote with us that they have NOT seen "conduct by new gTLD registry operators" that they believe constitutes a "substantial pattern or practice of specific bad faith intent to provide from the sale of trademark infringing domain names." Accordingly, they Skipped questions 8, 9 and 10 about how to make the TM-PDDRP better because they did not feel it was needed.
Accordingly, of the 16 responses, 11 of them Did Not recommend Any Changes to the TM-PDDRP. That's an affirmative act. These are skilled members of our Community - Registries, Registrars, ccTLDs, IPC Members, Business Constituency (they responded with names and/or affiliations that you can see on the full survey results). They know how to ask for what they want and need.
I don't think we need redo this survey, but I do think we need to analyze it -- the unconsolidated, detailed version.
And then talk about mediation, consolidation, and a limitations period, issues that have been discussed extensively in our WG since the early days of our TM-PDDRP discussions.
Full survey, All TM=PDDRP Survey Response from Community, attached. Also posted on our WG TM-PDDRP Wiki page at https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/Additional+Documents+and+Ma...
Best, Kathy
On 10/18/2016 10:19 AM, Mary Wong wrote:
Hello everyone,
In light of a few questions that have been raised about the survey, staff hopes the following notes will be helpful:
- The initial email solicitation that was sent to Supporting Organizations, Advisory Committees, Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies (SO/ACdid not specify a date by which the responses were expected, though a subsequent note mentioned mid-September, and we kept the survey open for some time after that date.
- Question 1 of the survey asked for the respondent’s name and details (though they could choose not to provide them) – this isn’t reflected in the consolidated responses document, which starts from Question 2 (SO/AC/SG/C affiliation).
- Not all respondents noted their SO/AC/SG/C affiliation (if any); of those that did, I believe we got responses from 1 Registries, 5 Registrars, 3 IPC, 2 BC, 1 ccNSO, and 1 At-Large member (if I recall correctly). Several respondents also answered that they represented trademark owners.
- Certain questions were predicated on a “If your answer to the preceding question is Yes” basis; however, a respondent could choose to also provide examples and details even if they didn’t answer Yes to the previous question.
Finally, the Working Group may recall that a few members volunteered several weeks ago to compile a Google Document comprising real/observed experiences with perceived registry behavior that they believe may come within the purview of the TM-PDDRP. That document has been circulated for a last review amongst the group of volunteers, and we hope to share it with the full Working Group after the call tomorrow, if not before. Perhaps the Working Group can review that document prior to deciding whether or not to recirculate the survey.
We hope this information is of assistance.
Cheers Mary
On 10/18/16, 09:53, "gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Steve Levy" <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org on behalf of slevy@accentlawgroup.com> wrote:
+1 Brian
On 10/18/16, 9:42 AM, "gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org on behalf of
Winterfeldt, Brian J." <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org on behalf of
BWinterfeldt@mayerbrown.com> wrote:
>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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.protecti...
C01%7CBwinterfeldt%40mayerbrown.com%7Ccad701c35dc3416845bd08d3f759bebb%7C0
9131022b7854e6d8d42916975e51262%7C0&sdata=FLB5lBUu8KJ452nIHswQDuHxLero4h40
>8S6BwADCfwk%3D&reserved=0
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.protecti... .
org%2Fpipermail%2Fgnso-rpm-wg%2F2016-October%2F000685.html&data=01%7C01%7
CBwinterfeldt%40mayerbrown.com%7Ccad701c35dc3416845bd08d3f759bebb%7C09131
022b7854e6d8d42916975e51262%7C0&sdata=VIUCDoME2%2FjmgMFmQqmykgl8zJEZJU6Ov
>>zU%2FcwVRe%2Fs%3D&reserved=0
>>
>>"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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.protecti... .
com%2F&data=01%7C01%7CBwinterfeldt%40mayerbrown.com%7Ccad701c35dc3416845b
d08d3f759bebb%7C09131022b7854e6d8d42916975e51262%7C0&sdata=tWfU%2BStelCVq
>>yAuxWiUPXf1BS0BKBHUMUW1ztiwBJkY%3D&reserved=0
>>
>>
>>
>>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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.protecti...
%7C01%7CBwinterfeldt%40mayerbrown.com%7Ccad701c35dc3416845bd08d3f759bebb
%7C09131022b7854e6d8d42916975e51262%7C0&sdata=FLB5lBUu8KJ452nIHswQDuHxLe
>>>ro4h408S6BwADCfwk%3D&reserved=0
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.protecti...
p.com%2F&data=01%7C01%7CBwinterfeldt%40mayerbrown.com%7Ccad701c35dc3416
845bd08d3f759bebb%7C09131022b7854e6d8d42916975e51262%7C0&sdata=tWfU%2BS
>>>>telCVqyAuxWiUPXf1BS0BKBHUMUW1ztiwBJkY%3D&reserved=0
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.protecti...
01%7C01%7CBwinterfeldt%40mayerbrown.com%7Ccad701c35dc3416845bd08d3f759
bebb%7C09131022b7854e6d8d42916975e51262%7C0&sdata=FLB5lBUu8KJ452nIHswQ
>>>>>DuHxLero4h408S6BwADCfwk%3D&reserved=0
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.protecti... .
>surveymonkey.com%2Fmp%2Ftour%2Fskiplogic%2F&data=01%7C01%7CBwinterfel
>dt%40mayerbrown.com%7Ccad701c35dc3416845bd08d3f759bebb%7C09131022b785
>4e6d8d42916975e51262%7C0&sdata=vl6Lhl21GVSzrgY1nnJklWCQxvJk%2FElc2yi9
>>>>>>flUzNx0%3D&reserved=0
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Given the above, I'd place little weight on the results, either "for"
>>>>>>something or "against" something.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Sincerely,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>George Kirikos
>>>>>>416-588-0269
>https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.protecti...
>eap.com%2F&data=01%7C01%7CBwinterfeldt%40mayerbrown.com%7Ccad701c35dc
>3416845bd08d3f759bebb%7C09131022b7854e6d8d42916975e51262%7C0&sdata=tW
>>>>>>fU%2BStelCVqyAuxWiUPXf1BS0BKBHUMUW1ztiwBJkY%3D&reserved=0
>>>>>>
>>>>>>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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.protecti...
>>a=01%7C01%7CBwinterfeldt%40mayerbrown.com%7Ccad701c35dc3416845bd08d3
>>f759bebb%7C09131022b7854e6d8d42916975e51262%7C0&sdata=FLB5lBUu8KJ452
>>>>>>>nIHswQDuHxLero4h408S6BwADCfwk%3D&reserved=0
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.protecti...
>>munity.icann.org%2Fx%2FugqsAw%5Bcommunity.icann.org&data=01%7C01%7CB
>>winterfeldt%40mayerbrown.com%7Ccad701c35dc3416845bd08d3f759bebb%7C09
>>131022b7854e6d8d42916975e51262%7C0&sdata=3AhE7D7sQ71PXkCT2Y4BBmXOIBM
>>>>>>>%2FVXefpQnxZ8CnsKU%3D&reserved=0].
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.protecti... .
>>icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-rpm-wg&data=01%7C01%7CBwinterf
>>eldt%40mayerbrown.com%7Ccad701c35dc3416845bd08d3f759bebb%7C09131022b
>>7854e6d8d42916975e51262%7C0&sdata=nNFktZrR2RCSn2zoMfdFLp1t2uvlKXPFI9
>>>>>>>PJ%2BbWKU5o%3D&reserved=0
>>>>>>_______________________________________________
>>>>>>gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
>>>>>>gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org
>https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.protecti...
>cann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-rpm-wg&data=01%7C01%7CBwinterfel
>dt%40mayerbrown.com%7Ccad701c35dc3416845bd08d3f759bebb%7C09131022b785
>4e6d8d42916975e51262%7C0&sdata=nNFktZrR2RCSn2zoMfdFLp1t2uvlKXPFI9PJ%2
>>>>>>BbWKU5o%3D&reserved=0
>>>>>
>>>>_______________________________________________
>>>>gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
>>>>gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.protecti...
nn.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-rpm-wg&data=01%7C01%7CBwinterfeldt%4
0mayerbrown.com%7Ccad701c35dc3416845bd08d3f759bebb%7C09131022b7854e6d8d
42916975e51262%7C0&sdata=nNFktZrR2RCSn2zoMfdFLp1t2uvlKXPFI9PJ%2BbWKU5o%
>>>>3D&reserved=0
>>>
>
>_______________________________________________
>gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
>gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.protecti... .
org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-rpm-wg&data=01%7C01%7CBwinterfeldt%40mayer
brown.com%7Ccad701c35dc3416845bd08d3f759bebb%7C09131022b7854e6d8d42916975e
51262%7C0&sdata=nNFktZrR2RCSn2zoMfdFLp1t2uvlKXPFI9PJ%2BbWKU5o%3D&reserved=
>0
__________________________________________________________________________
>
>
>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
_______________________________________________ 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
Thanks for this additional insight Mary. 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, 7:19 AM, "Mary Wong" <mary.wong@icann.org> wrote:
Hello everyone,
In light of a few questions that have been raised about the survey, staff hopes the following notes will be helpful:
- The initial email solicitation that was sent to Supporting Organizations, Advisory Committees, Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies (SO/ACdid not specify a date by which the responses were expected, though a subsequent note mentioned mid-September, and we kept the survey open for some time after that date.
- Question 1 of the survey asked for the respondent’s name and details (though they could choose not to provide them) this isn’t reflected in the consolidated responses document, which starts from Question 2 (SO/AC/SG/C affiliation).
- Not all respondents noted their SO/AC/SG/C affiliation (if any); of those that did, I believe we got responses from 1 Registries, 5 Registrars, 3 IPC, 2 BC, 1 ccNSO, and 1 At-Large member (if I recall correctly). Several respondents also answered that they represented trademark owners.
- Certain questions were predicated on a “If your answer to the preceding question is Yes” basis; however, a respondent could choose to also provide examples and details even if they didn’t answer Yes to the previous question.
Finally, the Working Group may recall that a few members volunteered several weeks ago to compile a Google Document comprising real/observed experiences with perceived registry behavior that they believe may come within the purview of the TM-PDDRP. That document has been circulated for a last review amongst the group of volunteers, and we hope to share it with the full Working Group after the call tomorrow, if not before. Perhaps the Working Group can review that document prior to deciding whether or not to recirculate the survey.
We hope this information is of assistance.
Cheers Mary
On 10/18/16, 09:53, "gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Steve Levy" <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org on behalf of slevy@accentlawgroup.com> wrote:
+1 Brian
On 10/18/16, 9:42 AM, "gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org on behalf of
Winterfeldt, Brian J." <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org on behalf of
BWinterfeldt@mayerbrown.com> wrote:
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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.prote ction.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dwww.adobe.com-26data-3D01-257&d=DQIGog&c=FmY1u 3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w3xl7xb5 cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=Cb2kDBPqnWowtSuMWqQgGAWtVS5jFhKsGVayuIR35mg&s=Wv7WVFaA5vsdM zKGOFooBWnU4HPs409ptkDvJMwHoT0&e=
C01%7CBwinterfeldt%40mayerbrown.com%7Ccad701c35dc3416845bd08d3f759bebb%7C 0
9131022b7854e6d8d42916975e51262%7C0&sdata=FLB5lBUu8KJ452nIHswQDuHxLero4h4 0
8S6BwADCfwk%3D&reserved=0
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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.prot ection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dhttp-253A-252F-252Fmm.icann&d=DQIGog&c=FmY1u 3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w3xl7xb 5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=Cb2kDBPqnWowtSuMWqQgGAWtVS5jFhKsGVayuIR35mg&s=JSrtf22S0lY p_TXvmmSkU2_yYDrUoKBZQ-q8_w3IKjk&e= .
org%2Fpipermail%2Fgnso-rpm-wg%2F2016-October%2F000685.html&data=01%7C01% 7
CBwinterfeldt%40mayerbrown.com%7Ccad701c35dc3416845bd08d3f759bebb%7C0913 1
022b7854e6d8d42916975e51262%7C0&sdata=VIUCDoME2%2FjmgMFmQqmykgl8zJEZJU6O v
zU%2FcwVRe%2Fs%3D&reserved=0
"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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.prot ection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dhttp-253A-252F-252Fwww.leap&d=DQIGog&c=FmY1u 3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w3xl7xb 5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=Cb2kDBPqnWowtSuMWqQgGAWtVS5jFhKsGVayuIR35mg&s=cYA4KTitDA- lyJ_1Ip7sdCAxeO1Aks9SSGiLy8t61Q0&e= .
com%2F&data=01%7C01%7CBwinterfeldt%40mayerbrown.com%7Ccad701c35dc3416845 b
d08d3f759bebb%7C09131022b7854e6d8d42916975e51262%7C0&sdata=tWfU%2BStelCV q
yAuxWiUPXf1BS0BKBHUMUW1ztiwBJkY%3D&reserved=0
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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.pro tection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dwww.adobe.com-26data-3D01&d=DQIGog&c=FmY1u 3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w3xl7x b5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=Cb2kDBPqnWowtSuMWqQgGAWtVS5jFhKsGVayuIR35mg&s=fvhovw3o3 b2LHI5FemyH8GoupbhL2hRClmUjF0lnYxk&e=
%7C01%7CBwinterfeldt%40mayerbrown.com%7Ccad701c35dc3416845bd08d3f759beb b
%7C09131022b7854e6d8d42916975e51262%7C0&sdata=FLB5lBUu8KJ452nIHswQDuHxL e
ro4h408S6BwADCfwk%3D&reserved=0
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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.pr otection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dhttp-253A-252F-252Fwww.lea&d=DQIGog&c=Fm Y1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w3 xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=Cb2kDBPqnWowtSuMWqQgGAWtVS5jFhKsGVayuIR35mg&s=CENz SQO-UItQAZFzgA4Ifp--PSIZhkJjki5JzxQbpXM&e=
p.com%2F&data=01%7C01%7CBwinterfeldt%40mayerbrown.com%7Ccad701c35dc341 6
845bd08d3f759bebb%7C09131022b7854e6d8d42916975e51262%7C0&sdata=tWfU%2B S
telCVqyAuxWiUPXf1BS0BKBHUMUW1ztiwBJkY%3D&reserved=0
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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.p rotection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dwww.adobe.com-26data-3D&d=DQIGog&c=FmY 1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w3 xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=Cb2kDBPqnWowtSuMWqQgGAWtVS5jFhKsGVayuIR35mg&s=WWm ZRfbYWC8h77-UrwmWK4CLhzfKqvi6VmmytPGE6OQ&e=
01%7C01%7CBwinterfeldt%40mayerbrown.com%7Ccad701c35dc3416845bd08d3f75 9
bebb%7C09131022b7854e6d8d42916975e51262%7C0&sdata=FLB5lBUu8KJ452nIHsw Q
DuHxLero4h408S6BwADCfwk%3D&reserved=0
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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks. >protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dhttps-253A-252F-252Fwww&d=DQIGog&c=F >mY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c >2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=Cb2kDBPqnWowtSuMWqQgGAWtVS5jFhKsGVayuIR35mg&s >=bAn0luLoLGcRRgPR3B60zmziY7y16bRJTQZYELVwjjM&e= .
>surveymonkey.com%2Fmp%2Ftour%2Fskiplogic%2F&data=01%7C01%7CBwinterfe >l
>dt%40mayerbrown.com%7Ccad701c35dc3416845bd08d3f759bebb%7C09131022b78 >5
>4e6d8d42916975e51262%7C0&sdata=vl6Lhl21GVSzrgY1nnJklWCQxvJk%2FElc2yi >9
>flUzNx0%3D&reserved=0
>
>Given the above, I'd place little weight on the results, either "for"
>something or "against" something.
>
>Sincerely,
>
>George Kirikos
>416-588-0269
>https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks. >protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dhttp-253A-252F-252Fwww.l&d=DQIGog&c= >FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6 >c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=Cb2kDBPqnWowtSuMWqQgGAWtVS5jFhKsGVayuIR35mg& >s=j8QIgHGA8iVduJZpOCzS-M7dunw3vjNpc4x4vKCQKrI&e=
>eap.com%2F&data=01%7C01%7CBwinterfeldt%40mayerbrown.com%7Ccad701c35d >c
>3416845bd08d3f759bebb%7C09131022b7854e6d8d42916975e51262%7C0&sdata=t >W
>fU%2BStelCVqyAuxWiUPXf1BS0BKBHUMUW1ztiwBJkY%3D&reserved=0
>
>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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks >>.protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dwww.adobe.com-26dat&d=DQIGog&c=FmY >>1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2 >>w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=Cb2kDBPqnWowtSuMWqQgGAWtVS5jFhKsGVayuIR35mg&s >>=_HBcYonZABN5yLbgVU5ilIoslEz_mfS7tq7_I1eb67Q&e=
>>a=01%7C01%7CBwinterfeldt%40mayerbrown.com%7Ccad701c35dc3416845bd08d >>3
>>f759bebb%7C09131022b7854e6d8d42916975e51262%7C0&sdata=FLB5lBUu8KJ45 >>2
>>nIHswQDuHxLero4h408S6BwADCfwk%3D&reserved=0
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks >>.protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dhttps-253A-252F-252Fcom&d=DQIGog&c >>=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2 >>x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=Cb2kDBPqnWowtSuMWqQgGAWtVS5jFhKsGVayuIR35 >>mg&s=wJ0GasZYquK6q6dDUp8pKpydSvEdwpCh2jytVwsclZE&e=
>>munity.icann.org%2Fx%2FugqsAw%5Bcommunity.icann.org&data=01%7C01%7C >>B
>>winterfeldt%40mayerbrown.com%7Ccad701c35dc3416845bd08d3f759bebb%7C0 >>9
>>131022b7854e6d8d42916975e51262%7C0&sdata=3AhE7D7sQ71PXkCT2Y4BBmXOIB >>M
>>%2FVXefpQnxZ8CnsKU%3D&reserved=0].
>>
>>
>>
>> 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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks >>.protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dhttps-253A-252F-252Fmm&d=DQIGog&c= >>FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x >>6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=Cb2kDBPqnWowtSuMWqQgGAWtVS5jFhKsGVayuIR35m >>g&s=1ion1hFz1idaqbSlgmGom3KVhXwcLGJ-YX-h9DRxBzo&e= .
>>icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-rpm-wg&data=01%7C01%7CBwinter >>f
>>eldt%40mayerbrown.com%7Ccad701c35dc3416845bd08d3f759bebb%7C09131022 >>b
>>7854e6d8d42916975e51262%7C0&sdata=nNFktZrR2RCSn2zoMfdFLp1t2uvlKXPFI >>9
>>PJ%2BbWKU5o%3D&reserved=0
>_______________________________________________
>gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
>gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org
>https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks. >protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dhttps-253A-252F-252Fmm.i&d=DQIGog&c= >FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6 >c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=Cb2kDBPqnWowtSuMWqQgGAWtVS5jFhKsGVayuIR35mg& >s=sVQXkp4WFEIZNsn2wzZHauiSs1Ce96xSZnIcV0rlvzE&e=
>cann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-rpm-wg&data=01%7C01%7CBwinterfe >l
>dt%40mayerbrown.com%7Ccad701c35dc3416845bd08d3f759bebb%7C09131022b78 >5
>4e6d8d42916975e51262%7C0&sdata=nNFktZrR2RCSn2zoMfdFLp1t2uvlKXPFI9PJ% >2
>BbWKU5o%3D&reserved=0
_______________________________________________
gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.pr otection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dhttps-253A-252F-252Fmm.ica&d=DQIGog&c=Fm Y1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w3 xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=Cb2kDBPqnWowtSuMWqQgGAWtVS5jFhKsGVayuIR35mg&s=Wj7H HRtY0M7XOufzUcXG8ocEA9vKS2tCl00_mk1bh5E&e=
nn.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-rpm-wg&data=01%7C01%7CBwinterfeldt% 4
0mayerbrown.com%7Ccad701c35dc3416845bd08d3f759bebb%7C09131022b7854e6d8 d
42916975e51262%7C0&sdata=nNFktZrR2RCSn2zoMfdFLp1t2uvlKXPFI9PJ%2BbWKU5o %
3D&reserved=0
_______________________________________________
gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.prote ction.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dhttps-253A-252F-252Fmm.icann&d=DQIGog&c=FmY1u3 PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w3xl7xb5c jS_7sB4h6Y&m=Cb2kDBPqnWowtSuMWqQgGAWtVS5jFhKsGVayuIR35mg&s=yzZ1h1cepbWa2x l03oaOavWIGr8YEelFoAU7x_RcPe0&e= .
org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-rpm-wg&data=01%7C01%7CBwinterfeldt%40maye r
brown.com%7Ccad701c35dc3416845bd08d3f759bebb%7C09131022b7854e6d8d42916975 e
51262%7C0&sdata=nNFktZrR2RCSn2zoMfdFLp1t2uvlKXPFI9PJ%2BbWKU5o%3D&reserved =
0
_________________________________________________________________________ _
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
_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
participants (9)
-
Brian F. Cimbolic -
David W. Maher -
George Kirikos -
J. Scott Evans -
Kathy Kleiman -
Kiran Malancharuvil -
Lori Schulman -
Mary Wong -
Winterfeldt, Brian J.