It's a rare day that I decide to focus upon process, but process was the root cause of the GNSO's poor decision-making that led to the sorely deficient Applicant Guidebook. I recall the GNSO's Washington session chaired by Bruce Tonkin at which the position was taken that least-common-denominator agreement constituted consensus. This meant that if Business had a concern that wasn't shared by other parties, that concern was shoved to the sidelines in pursuit of those areas upon which all other parties had sufficient agreement. Similarly, if Intellectual Property concerns were raised that weren't shared by all in the room, then these too were set aside. This approach was a fundamental deviation from the consensus standard that has guided ICANN since its inception. In the article "Why Consensus Matters", Susan Crawford defined the nature of consensus as follows: "The consensus standard calls on all parties to suggest changes that, while not perhaps optimal, will persuade others not to oppose. It is a standard based on the ideal of cooperation (looking for the high ground, not the lowest common denominator that can marshal a majority) on which the net was built." We are in a mess with the new gTLD plans precisely because we failed to act in keeping with consensus principles. The basic premise is simple: if intense opposition is absent or irrational or limited to those who do not bear the impact of the policy in question, then a policy may go forward on a consensus basis, otherwise, legitimate opposition and concerns must be taken into account -- they cannot be trampled upon in the pursuit of a least-common-denominator approach. In view of the public comments tendered, we should have the GNSO go back to the drawing board and begin anew with a process that respects our consensus traditions.