Hi folks, On Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 10:28 AM, J. Scott Evans via gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> wrote:
Brain. Point taken. I don’t mean to be flippant. That said, I am growing increasing tired of there always being a negative inference from behaviors from those that are overall hostile to RPMs in general. My point is that as a proponent of RPMs and someone who worked diligently for over 9 months to come up with these RPMs that the abandonment rate does not automatically indicate that the system is not working as intended.
That doesn't make any sense at all to me. A few minutes ago, I quoted from point #1 of the email at: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2017-May/001949.html Let me now quote from #2: 2. "Please be civil to your fellow members and ****try to focus any criticisms on the substance of a proposal or assertion and not on the person who made it.****" (emphasis added) Instead of addressing the *assertion*, you attack those who make the points, stating "a negative inference from behaviors from those that are overall hostile to RPMs in general." Here's a startling fact: one can be against cybersquatting, but also be against bad policies that attempt to address it. So, don't assume "hostility" towards a certain policy isn't justified, and attempt to misdirect things by focusing on the person making the post, rather than the substance. To compound that, you then write "as a proponent of RPMs and someone who worked diligently for over 9 months to come up with these RPMs" --- why does that even matter? That's the other side of the coin, so to speak, of point #2, focusing on who is making the assertion and attempting to give it more weight. I would suggest that indeed, the people who were the architects of the plans might be the last people who should be reviewing it, as it is inherently biased. Read this as "I reviewed my own work, and found it to be amazing." How credible is that? Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/