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

Colin O'Brien colin at PartridgePartnersPC.com
Fri Apr 7 18:11:26 UTC 2017


Thanks, 

I agree we should be focusing on the data but it seems that the working group is devolving into a debating society on the philosophical underpinnings of human rights and trademark law which results in nothing getting done. 

 In the past meeting I believe you asked for the top 500 strings that were registered in the TMCH.  I think this is a really good ask.  

I'd like to know if most of the 500 were trademarks which is indicative that it is being used to protect brand owners and their millions of customers.  

Conversely if many of these top 500 are generic terms i.e. math, science then there is a problem and this working group should try to come up with a fix.

Colin Thomas Jefferson O'Brien

321 North Clark Street, Suite 720
Chicago, Illinois 60654
312-634-9503
http://www.partridge.partners/



-----Original Message-----
From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of George Kirikos
Sent: Friday, April 07, 2017 12:57 PM
To: gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Action Items, Slides and Notes from the Working Group call held earlier today

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/
_______________________________________________
gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg

______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com ______________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com
______________________________________________________________________


More information about the gnso-rpm-wg mailing list