<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:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext">This
brings up a couple of philosophical questions that I hope
aren’t too far afield, but are implicated by Paul’s 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:"Calibri",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:"Calibri",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:"Calibri",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:"Calibri",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 it’s 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:"Calibri",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>