On 20 Jun 2018, at 21:03, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com> wrote:

There was no consensus. There was no consensus call.  There were no “findings” and there is nothing getting “derailed”, but that is an interesting choice of words on your part.  

Actually, WT4 initially did a good number of consensus calls on foundational questions. Outcomes mostly didn't have formal consensus calls, although a minority from the beginning happened to have.

But in order to have an homogenous output of the WG, we won't be referencing even the ones that were done as such. 

From the GNSO Working Group Guidelines:  “It is the responsibility of the WG members to make sure any initial drafts represent as much of the diversity of views as possible.”

 

Let me continue quoting the phrase just after the one you quoted:

"This may be done by either asking multiple WG members to contribute text that may be assembled with the help of staff, or for a drafting subgroup to be established to produce such an initial draft. "

A drafting subgroup is exactly what WT4 is, so the method prescribed by the GNSO WG guidelines was followed. 

Jeff advised these issues will be addressed. I’ll check the redline.

Please refer redline issues to staff and co-chairs. 

Rubens

_______________________________________________
Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list
Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg