<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
</head>
<body>
This message was sent out week ago. Since then I have gotten comments from Stephanie but still no definitive statement on whether she supports each Rec or not, and a message from Volker saying he would try to look at it last weekend. Stephanie has indicated
she will submit a minority statement, but none has yet to be delivered.<br>
<br>
We have an engagement session scheduled on Tuesday to report on what is in the final report, so we do need to issue a final report. I am fully committed to other tasks this weekend, so I will shortly follow the path outlined in the message below for reporting
on consensus. Specifically <font color="#0000FF"><u>"We believe that based on the general support we had for the recommendations at the end of the last face-to-face meeting and shortly thereafter, and the lack of any message indicating that either Stephanie
or Volker is NOT supporting any recommendation, we plan to declare that we have full consensus on all recommendations, noting this history and the lack of a reply from the two members."<br>
<br>
</u></font>Alan<br>
<br>
<br>
At 28/02/2019 10:55 PM, Alan Greenberg wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite" class="cite" cite="">Hi Keith,<br>
<br>
I am sending this message as Chair of the RDS-WHOIS2 Review Team to update you on the status of the Review.<br>
<br>
It had been our intention to issue our Final Report by the end of 2018, but for a number of reasons, that proved not possible. Similarly, we were not able to make the fall-back date of 31 January 2019 but are trying to get it out prior to the leaving for the
Kobe meeting. We are in the last editing phase but there is still one stumbling block - determining the final level of consensus on the recommendations.<br>
<br>
The recommendations were largely finalized during our last face-to-face meeting on 10-12 December, subject to final editing. At that time, all team members indicated they supported the recommendations except for one member who objected to one recommendation.
That recommendation was reworded to that team member's satisfaction, and no one registered any other dissent. Nevertheless, the team decided that we would hold a final consensus call to ensure that everyone was satisfied with the final intent and wording of
the recommendations.<br>
<br>
At this point, of the nine active and voting RT members, seven have formally given their final support for all recommendations. Despite several many requests and reminders for a response, two of the team members, Stephanie Perrin and Volker Greimann, appointed
by the GNSO Council, have not responded.<br>
<br>
Although I am sure that both Stephanie and Volker had good reason to have not been able to reply, we cannot further delay the issuance of the report.<br>
<br>
I discussed the situation today with my leadership team (Susan Kawaguchi, appointed by the GNSO and Cathrin Bauer-Bulst, appointed by the GAC). We believe that based on the general support we had for the recommendations at the end of the last face-to-face meeting
and shortly thereafter, and the lack of any message indicating that either Stephanie or Volker is NOT supporting any recommendation, we plan to declare that we have full consensus on all recommendations, noting this history and the lack of a reply from the
two members.<br>
<br>
As what I would consider a poorer alternative, we could just base consensus on the seven members who have provided final input (and effectively reducing the GNSO voting count from four to two).<br>
<br>
As the Chair of the group appointing these two Review Team Members, I would appreciate hearing your views on this and having your support for proceeding with the first alternative.<br>
<br>
Warm regards, Alan<br>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>