RE: [gnso-dt-wg] Collecting Facts

[Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

> there has been little (apart from the work done by SSAC) 
> statistical analysis to identify the size of the problem.

Due to the nature of the problem, statistical analysis may
be difficult and not directly difinitive. I agree that we 
should attempt that as best we can but should keep in mind:

1. The actual tasting volume can be determined with a fair
amount of accuracy by gathering data from monthly registry
reports and data directly from the registies.

2. The actual kiting volume cannot be determined with any
accuracy because it's a question of intent. So data
could be gathered, with the registries help, on the number
of names tasted repeatedly and over what period of time. 
That may *infer* the potential size of the kiting problem,
but it will be far from difinitive.

3. Any data regarding the alleged harm tasting causes will 
be arguable. The vocal minority will be heard and their 
data will be presented but it will be viewed by some as not
statistically significant.

So metrics/statistics will be useful, but in the end the
GNSO, and ultimately the BoD, will have to make a decision 
based what the data infers. Perhaps a way to look at it is
what does a balance of probabilities, or a preponderance of 
the evidence and its probable truth and accuracy, indicate?
IMHO, it is unreasonable to impose a higher standard of
proof of harm than that.


Tim 


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: [gnso-dt-wg] Collecting Facts
From: "Bruce Tonkin" <Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, July 30, 2007 11:11 pm
To: <gnso-dt-wg@xxxxxxxxx>

Hello Mike,

> 
> Bruce, thanks. I have discussed with Olof and he will engage ICANN
> Staff in hopes of gathering data along these lines. Others 
> on the list
> have already begun some work in regards to your scenarios #2 
> and #3, at
> least, but you lay out very specific data that seem achievable and
> certainly would be useful. 
> 

Note that I suggest data be collected in such a way as that it is
statistically significant - rather than a series of individual cases.

Ie I am sure there are examples where a name used for tasting violates a
trademark - the question is how often. Likewise there would certainly
be examples where a registrant cannot obtain their desired name as the
name is currently being tasted and subsequently deleted several days
later.

The benefit of examples is that it gives you a pattern that you can then
use to do statistical analysis. It is the next step that is usually not
taken in the GNSO policy debates. We have seen this in the WHOIS debate
where both sides of the debate provide examples, but there has been
little (apart from the work done by SSAC) statistical analysis to
identify the size of the problem.

Regards,
Bruce Tonkin