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