Thanks Mary, Ariel, and Julie. I wish to note my personal acceptance of the co-chairs’ evaluation of the consensus designations. Best regards, David David McAuley Sr International Policy & Business Development Manager Verisign Inc. 703-948-4154 From: GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Julie Hedlund Sent: Wednesday, November 11, 2020 10:11 AM To: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: [EXTERNAL] [GNSO-RPM-WG] Proposed Consensus Designations: RPMs PDP WG Final Report Recommendations Caution: This email originated from outside the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear WG members, On behalf of the RPMs PDP WG Co-Chairs, please see the attached proposed Consensus Designations for WG review. In summary, the Co-Chairs have designated all recommendations except TMCH Final Recommendation #1 as “Full Consensus”. Because of several members’ collective Minority Statement, submitted by Zak Muscovitch, regarding TMCH Final Recommendation #1, the Co-Chairs have designated that recommendation as “Consensus”. Please see below for the various consensus level designations from section 3.6 of the Working Group Guidelines. Per the RPMs PDP WG Work Plan, WG members have until Thursday, 12 November, to indicate via the list whether they accept the Co-Chairs’ evaluation of the Consensus Designations. Per the Working Group Guidelines, if a WG member or members object to the designations, the Co-Chairs “should reevaluate and publish an updated evaluation”. A non-response from WG members will be taken as non-objection. Note that per the Work Plan, WG members, as a small group, may submit their views for any recommendation that did not receive full consensus support from the Working Group (i.e., only TMCH Final Recommendation #1) by 20 November, although it will be helpful to submit them, if any, as soon as possible. Provided such views are a proposal that meets the criteria for a Minority View (See Working Group Guidelines at Section 3.6), they will be documented in the Final Report in “Annex D - Working Group Members' Views on TMCH Final Recommendation #1”. Kind regards, Mary, Ariel, and Julie Consensus Designations, per the GNSO Working Group Guidelines<https://secure-web.cisco.com/1zQ7ICmXsL2BrrOeKI41YRmIhL1a_SPb35lnt9YVvlj_7M_...>, section 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.