Hi Everyone: We spent a lot of today looking at past PDPs and levels of Consensus designations. I also considered your emails regarding consensus designations and appreciate the experience you have had as Chair or members of previous PDPs. We particularly examined the Curative Rights PDP, IGO/NGO PDP and the Registration Abuse Policies WG (and others). In those we found examples of designations of consensus where 4 of 15 members disagreed or representatives of three different GNSO groups disagreed. I have thought to take a conservative approach to consensus designations because I do not want to inflate the perceptions around our levels of agreement. To me a label of “Stong Agreement / Significant Opposition” should be an indication to the Council that such a recommendation should be favorably considered for adoption. However, past precedent indicates a broader definition of “Consensus” is appropriate. Therefore, I have adjusted some of the designations in accordance with the Alan's, Thomas’ and other emails. I chose not to conflate the number of groups with the voting scheme of the GNSO Council. I think that is the province of the Council, i.e., discussion at the Council level and the voting scheme will come into play there as items with “Strong Support" are considered. The report will necessarily list those in opposition to t certain recommendation. Please check the attached to determine support (or the opposite) is accurately reflected. During the call tomorrow, we will check to see if any levels of support have changed based on the discussion and email exchanges. Please write back with questions. Kurt