[Gnso-newgtld-wg] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 13 March 2019

Rubens Kuhl rubensk at nic.br
Tue Mar 19 21:42:47 UTC 2019

> As Chair, for the record, this concept was supported by the Work Track that made this recommendation without any dissent prior to the Initial Report.  As far as the comments we got back, ICANN agreed with the recommendation, but expressed concern as to the complexity of implementing this. The only comment that disagreed was from the BC.  Neustar, Lemarit, Fairwinds and the BRG supported the recommendation.

I would like to highlight this point from Jeff but generalize it: I noticed some remarks in the list and in our meetings mentioning that recommendation X got Y comments against ; the point is that those recommendations have either no or little dissent to be put out as general agreements, while the ones with some dissent were made as questions in the initial report. So saying that a majority/all commenters were against makes for a bit of dissent, not for a majority, since that point already had significant support in the respective WTs. 

And while we did have some agreeing comments, people are more likely to express themselves in disagreement... so it's not surprising that the overall trend of comments would be against. If those dissents convince the WG to change those recommendations it will be exactly because the WG has then moved its position, not because the share of the comments. 


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/attachments/20190319/f5b9646d/attachment.html>

More information about the Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list