<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">Keith:<br><div><div><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; font-family: Helvetica; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: -webkit-auto; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-size: medium; ">However, if/when there is not full consensus, it will be important that we have a mechanism for expressing dissenting opinions. The GNSO Registries Stakeholder Group employs a "minority statement" mechanism to allow for all views to be expressed when there is consensus but not unanimity on a particular topic. Perhaps we should consider a similar mechanism for the ICG.<br></span></blockquote></div><br><div>We have one deliverable -- the proposal to NTIA. We cannot deliver the majority proposal and a minority statement. We need a proposal that is supported by the global multistakeholder community.</div><div><br></div><div>Russ</div><div><br></div></body></html>