[gnso-rpm-wg] Clarification on my comments about scope on the call that just ended

[icannlists]

I believe that my imprecision may have caused some concern.  I have no problem evaluating whether or not we can find cases where the policies and procedures/rules underlying an RPM have been misapplied resulting in an off kilter decision.  If there are in fact examples (and that is an important “if” since we do not want to conjure examples from the hypothetical world), it is appropriate to see if there are changes possible to the policies and procedures/rules underlying the RPM to make sure it doesn’t happen again.  That said, however, was not what was being discussed on the call (or at least not purely); for example, a request by some to react retroactively to  2009 issue raised about the Forum (noting here that 2009 preceded the URS itself).  I do believe that looking at Provider behavior generally or looking at their compliance with any ICANN contract/MOU specifically is outside of our scope.  So, let’s stay focused on RPMs as applied by Providers and avoid anti-provider witch hunts generally.  I hope this helps clarify.  Thanks all!

Best,
Paul




________________________________
The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. If this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author. Any tax advice contained in this email was not intended to be used, and cannot be used, by you (or any other taxpayer) to avoid penalties under applicable tax laws and regulations.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/attachments/20171115/94652b1a/attachment.html>