[gnso-rpm-wg] Action Items, Slides and Notes from the Working Group call held earlier today

George Kirikos icann at leap.com
Fri Apr 7 17:57:27 UTC 2017


Hello,

On Fri, Apr 7, 2017 at 1:39 PM, Colin O'Brien
<colin at partridgepartnerspc.com> wrote:
"It is not the place for a handful of individuals to declare that
everything should be reviewed and they should be entitled to challenge
past assumptions allowing this to happen will result in a tyranny of
few creating paralysis in this working group.  The end result of this
paralysis  will ensure no tangible fixes are made to the RPM system in
ICANN and everything remains in status quo."

It's not the place, in a review group, to say we shouldn't be doing
the work of a review group. Paralysis is caused by folks saying that
"all has already been asked and answered before", rather than by folks
saying "let's gather the data, review it, test past assumptions in
light of this data, and make conclusions accordingly."

Everything remains in the status quo if we *don't* put in the work,
and it seems that's what some folks are happy with. If folks aren't
prepared to put in the work, and are just here to ensure the status
quo remains unchanged, then they're the cause of paralysis, blocking
others who are here to work hard.

John McElwaine followed up with:
"I believe it is out of our scope to be debating whether an RPM, or a
particular aspect of one, was "wrong policy" or "a policy mistake". "

If that's where the data leads us, why wouldn't it be in scope to say
that the deleterious effects of a given policy exceeded the salutory
effects, i.e. the cons outweighed the pros? That's a fundamental part
of any review.

Sincerely,

George Kirikos
416-588-0269
http://www.leap.com/


More information about the gnso-rpm-wg mailing list