As mentioned in the chat, please find below the standard methodology for making decisions as per the GNSO WG Guidelines (see https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/op-procedures-01sep16-en.pdf). Best regards, Marika 3.6 Standard Methodology for Making Decisions The Chair will be responsible for designating each position as having one of the following designations: · Full consensus - when no one in the group speaks against the recommendation in its last readings. This is also sometimes referred to as Unanimous Consensus. · Consensus - a position where only a small minority disagrees, but most agree. · Strong support but significant opposition - a position where, while most of the group supports a recommendation, there are a significant number of those who do not support it. · Divergence (also referred to as No Consensus) - a position where there isn't strong support for any particular position, but many different points of view. Sometimes this is due to irreconcilable differences of opinion and sometimes it is due to the fact that no one has a particularly strong or convincing viewpoint, but the members of the group agree that it is worth listing the issue in the report nonetheless. · Minority View - refers to a proposal where a small number of people support the recommendation. This can happen in response to a Consensus, Strong support but significant opposition, and No Consensus; or, it can happen in cases where there is neither support nor opposition to a suggestion made by a small number of individuals. In cases of Consensus, Strong support but significant opposition, and No Consensus, an effort should be made to document that variance in viewpoint and to present any Minority View recommendations that may have been made. Documentation of Minority View recommendations normally depends on text offered by the proponent(s). In all cases of Divergence, the WG Chair should encourage the submission of minority viewpoint(s). The recommended method for discovering the consensus level designation on recommendations should work as follows: i. After the group has discussed an issue long enough for all issues to have been raised, understood and discussed, the Chair, or Co-Chairs, make an evaluation of the designation and publish it for the group to review. ii. After the group has discussed the Chair's estimation of designation, the Chair, or Co-Chairs, should reevaluate and publish an updated evaluation. iii. Steps (i) and (ii) should continue until the Chair/Co-Chairs make an evaluation that is accepted by the group. iv. In rare case, a Chair may decide that the use of polls is reasonable. Some of the reasons for this might be: · A decision needs to be made within a time frame that does not allow for the natural process of iteration and settling on a designation to occur. · It becomes obvious after several iterations that it is impossible to arrive at a designation. This will happen most often when trying to discriminate between Consensus and Strong support but Significant Opposition or between Strong support but Significant Opposition and Divergence. v. Care should be taken in using polls that they do not become votes. A liability with the use of polls is that, in situations where there is Divergence or Strong Opposition, there are often disagreements about the meanings of the poll questions or of the poll results. Marika Konings Senior Policy Director & Team Leader for the GNSO, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: marika.konings@icann.org Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages.