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

[George Kirikos]

Obviously the answer of "No" doesn't automatically mean it'll need to
be scrapped, although it would means that the policy is broken and
needs to be fixed in some manner. Either adjusted, or "repealed and
replaced", to borrow a famous phrase.

Question #16 should stay. That's the entire point of doing a review,
an overarching question, trying to find out what's working and what's
broken, and then fixing the broken stuff.

Sincerely,

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



On Fri, Apr 7, 2017 at 2:16 PM, John McElwaine
<john.mcelwaine at nelsonmullins.com> wrote:
> George,  this example is overly simplistic, but If a simple "no" answer means that the policy is a wrong and needs to be scrapped, then I would say such an exercise is outside of the scope of our working group and we should remove this question.
>
> John
>
> -----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 7, 2017 2:07 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
>
> 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/
> _______________________________________________
> gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
> gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
> Confidentiality Notice
>
> This message is intended exclusively for the individual or entity to which it is addressed. This communication may contain information that is proprietary, privileged, confidential or otherwise legally exempt from disclosure.
>
> If you are not the named addressee, you are not authorized to read, print, retain, copy or disseminate this message or any part of it. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately either by phone (800-237-2000) or reply to this e-mail and delete all copies of this message.