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.