<html>
  <head>
    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
      charset=windows-1252">
  </head>
  <body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
    On 17/8/17 10:47 am, Jonathan Frost wrote:<br>
    <blockquote type="cite"
      cite="mid:000b01d31780$db1efc10$915cf430$@get.club">
      <p class="MsoNormal"><a name="_MailEndCompose"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;,sans-serif;color:windowtext">This
            brings up a couple of philosophical questions that I hope
            arenít too far afield, but are implicated by Paulís comment.</span></a></p>
      <ul style="margin-top:0in" type="disc">
        <li class="MsoListParagraph"
          style="color:windowtext;margin-left:0in;mso-list:l0 level1
          lfo1"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"><span
              style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;,sans-serif">What
              is the definition of consensus (is it unanimity or
              something less)?† </span></span></li>
      </ul>
      <ul style="margin-top:0in" type="disc">
        <li class="MsoListParagraph"
          style="color:windowtext;margin-left:0in;mso-list:l0 level1
          lfo1"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"><span
              style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;,sans-serif">Is
              consensus required for this PDP to make recommendations?</span></span></li>
      </ul>
      <ul style="margin-top:0in" type="disc">
        <li class="MsoListParagraph"
          style="color:windowtext;margin-left:0in;mso-list:l0 level1
          lfo1"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"><span
              style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;,sans-serif">Would
              consensus be required for this PDP to recommend that
              Sunrise be maintained in the next round (or is consensus
              only required to recommend a change from the last round)?</span></span></li>
      </ul>
      <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;,sans-serif;color:windowtext">I
            tend to agree with many here that Sunrise leaves a
            relatively light footprint (as opposed to claims), and are
            useful in the tapestry of RPMs, so I think Sunrise is a
            useful mechanism and should be maintained (and improved).†
            But itís not clear to me that we can shut down
            recommendations that are unlikely to reach consensus, when
            their opposite is also unlikely to meet consensus.</span><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;,sans-serif;color:windowtext"></span></span>
        <br>
      </p>
    </blockquote>
    <br>
    Since the new gTLD RPMs were not adopted as ICANN policy covering
    all gTLDs, there shouldn't be any automatic presumption that they
    will apply to future rounds in my view.† It's this group's role to
    decide whether they should or not.† If *not* making a decision means
    that we are, by default, deciding to extend the new RPMs to future
    rounds, then we haven't done our job.† That would create a very bad
    incentive for people to gum up the process and avoid reaching
    consensus, just because by doing so they will get the outcome that
    they are looking for anyway.† What kind of multi-stakeholderism is
    that?<br>
    <br>
    <pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">-- 
Jeremy Malcolm
Senior Global Policy Analyst
Electronic Frontier Foundation
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://eff.org">https://eff.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:jmalcolm@eff.org">jmalcolm@eff.org</a>

Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161

:: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World ::

Public key: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.eff.org/files/2016/11/27/key_jmalcolm.txt">https://www.eff.org/files/2016/11/27/key_jmalcolm.txt</a>
PGP fingerprint: 75D2 4C0D 35EA EA2F 8CA8 8F79 4911 EC4A EDDF 1122</pre>
  </body>
</html>