[GNSO-RPM-WG] Can the RPM WG better develop consensus?

[Nat Cohen]

Dear RPM WG members,

As we consider the overarching questions from Phase 1, and as we look
forward to Phase 2, from my perspective, largely as an observer, it appears
that the RPM WG is failing to accomplish the goals of any of its
constituent members.

In simplistic terms, the interests are:

IP bar  - more effective means to combat abusive registrations
Domain investors - protections against misuse of the UDRP to target
investment grade domain names
Civil society  - free speech protections and better privacy and
transparency where warranted.
Registrars/Registries - avoid the imposition of unduly burdensome procedures

These goals are not necessarily in conflict.  Even if you object to how I
characterize the various interests, the larger point is that they are not
directly opposed.  Reforms could be made that would result in RPMs that
better accomplish the primary interests of each of the constituent interest
 groups without greatly disadvantaging any of the other groups.

The conditions are therefore in place for a productive WG that accomplishes
the primary objectives of all its members.  Each group could achieve its
main objectives if the other groups were willing to offer relatively minor
concessions.  If all the groups participated in these trade-offs, then all
would be better off.

But since those concessions are examined in isolation, rather than in the
context of a whole package of reforms, they are shot down and nobody's
goals are advanced.  Without getting into the merits of the various
proposals regarding the TMCH and the URS, the inability to horse-trade by
linking proposals together may be inhibiting progress by the group. If
there were a combined package of four proposals, for instance, where a
strong majority favored at least one of the  proposals while not too
strongly disfavoring the other three, then adoption of that package could
achieve strong consensus support and would be considered a win by
a majority of the WG.  Yet under current procedures, none of the
procedures, examined in isolation, will achieve consensus support and all
will be discarded.

The WG is not following a successful procedure for developing better
policies.  Examining each minor revision in isolation is not how policy is
developed in legislative bodies, and certainly not in groups where a strong
consensus is required.  If we keep going as we have been, we will continue
to devote years to a masochistic exercise in minutia that will get us
nowhere after years of effort.

Yet as we look ahead to Phase 2, if we start with the big picture and place
everyone's top priorities on the table at the same time, then we might be
able to hammer out a revised, improved UDRP in short order.

Looking forward to a constructive Phase 2.

Regards,

Nat Cohen
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/attachments/20200720/ce5cf842/attachment.html>