![](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/d667ac994d5c178947a2fc07bee2484a.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
Julf, Will try to avoid the scenario you referred to by all means. On Thursday I will ask the question about the date when all groups will be ready to discuss early inputs and we will have full discussion at the indicated time. Thank you JK On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 12:17 PM Johan Helsingius <julf@julf.com> wrote:
On 30-07-19 10:42, Alan Woods wrote:
We understand the need to move matters along, and indeed, in non contentious matters, I can accept that silence will be acceptable, but, we do expect that in matters of a more substantive nature, including and for example, where comments to a document are to serve as the basis for draft policy recommendations, we would expect that such matters are to be decided on a more affirmative basis and we cannot support silence as being a valid indicator of approval in such instances.
Indeed. The risk of moving too fast based on "silence indicates approval" is that we might find us in a situation where at the end of the process, some parties can not support the (supposedly) consensus outcome.
Julf
_______________________________________________ Gnso-epdp-team mailing list Gnso-epdp-team@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.