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

[George Kirikos]

P.S. TMCH question #16 says:

"Does the scope of the TMCH and the protection mechanisms which flow
from it, reflect the appropriate balance between the rights of
trademark holders and the rights of non-trademark registrants?""

Some people here (the "status quo paralysis" camp) don't seem to be
prepared for the scenario where the answer to that question is "No",
and want to prejudge that answer as "Yes". An answer of "No", to go to
John McElwaine's earlier statement, is certainly consistent with a
conclusion that it was a policy mistake.

Since TMCH Question #16 has already been approved as a valid question
and in scope of this PDP, are some people unhappy it's there?

Sincerely,

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




On Fri, Apr 7, 2017 at 1:57 PM, George Kirikos <icann at leap.com> wrote:
> 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/