Hello, On Fri, Apr 7, 2017 at 1:39 PM, Colin O'Brien <colin@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/