[GNSO-RPM-WG] Phase 1 Final Report re: Proposed Consensus Designations: RPMs PDP WG Final Report Recommendations

[Corwin, Philip]

Thank you, Julie.



And thanks to my co-chairs, Kathy and Brian; to our Council liaisons during 
the course of Phase 1, including John; to all the members of the WG for their 
hard work and many contributions; and last but certainly not least to our 
exceptional ICANN support staff, without whom we never could have reached the 
finish line for Phase 1.



On to Phase 2 (but not too quickly).



Best to all,

Philip



From: GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org> On Behalf Of Julie Hedlund
Sent: Monday, November 23, 2020 1:32 PM
To: gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
Subject: [EXTERNAL] [GNSO-RPM-WG] Phase 1 Final Report re: Proposed Consensus 
Designations: RPMs PDP WG Final Report Recommendations




Caution: This email originated from outside the organization. Do not click 
links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content 
is safe.

Dear WG members,



No further views on TMCH Final Recommendation #1 were submitted by the 
deadline of Friday, 20 November.  Consequently, staff has compiled the 
attached Phase 1 Final Report on the Review of All Rights Protection 
Mechanisms in All gTLDs Policy Development Process to include the Consensus 
Designations as accepted by the WG in “Annex C – Consensus Designations” and 
the Minority Statement previously submitted in “Annex D - Working Group 
Members' Views on TMCH Final Recommendation #1”.



The RPMs PDP WG Co-Chairs will submit the Phase 1 Final Report to the GNSO 
Council for consideration.



Kind regards,

Mary, Ariel, and Julie



From: GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org 
<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org> > on behalf of Julie Hedlund 
<julie.hedlund at icann.org <mailto:julie.hedlund at icann.org> >
Date: Wednesday, November 18, 2020 at 9:50 AM
To: "gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org> " 
<gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org> >
Subject: [GNSO-RPM-WG] REMINDER re: Proposed Consensus Designations: RPMs PDP 
WG Final Report Recommendations



Dear WG members,



As of the deadline of Thursday, 12 November no WG members have indicated any 
objections to the attached Proposed Consensus Designations.  Thus, these 
Proposed Consensus Designations are considered to be accepted by the WG.



Reminder: Per the RPMs PDP WG Work Plan, WG members, as a small group, may 
submit their views for any recommendation that did not receive full consensus 
support from the Working Group (i.e., only TMCH Final Recommendation #1) by 20 
November, although it will be helpful to submit them, if any, as soon as 
possible. Provided such views are a proposal that meets the criteria for a 
Minority View (See Working Group Guidelines at Section 3.6), they will be 
documented in the Final Report in “Annex D - Working Group Members' Views on 
TMCH Final Recommendation #1”.



Kind regards,

Mary, Ariel, and Julie



From: GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org 
<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org> > on behalf of Julie Hedlund 
<julie.hedlund at icann.org <mailto:julie.hedlund at icann.org> >
Date: Wednesday, November 11, 2020 at 10:12 AM
To: "gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org> " 
<gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org> >
Subject: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Proposed Consensus Designations: RPMs PDP WG Final 
Report Recommendations



Dear WG members,



On behalf of the RPMs PDP WG Co-Chairs, please see the attached proposed 
Consensus Designations for WG review.



In summary, the Co-Chairs have designated all recommendations except TMCH 
Final Recommendation #1 as “Full Consensus”.  Because of several members’ 
collective Minority Statement, submitted by Zak Muscovitch, regarding TMCH 
Final Recommendation #1, the Co-Chairs have designated that recommendation as 
“Consensus”.  Please see below for  the various consensus level designations 
from section 3.6 of the Working Group Guidelines.



Per the RPMs PDP WG Work Plan, WG members have until Thursday, 12 November, to 
indicate via the list whether they accept the Co-Chairs’ evaluation of the 
Consensus Designations.  Per the Working Group Guidelines, if a WG member or 
members object to the designations, the Co-Chairs “should reevaluate and 
publish an updated evaluation”.  A non-response from WG members will be taken 
as non-objection.



Note that per the Work Plan, WG members, as a small group, may submit their 
views for any recommendation that did not receive full consensus support from 
the Working Group (i.e., only TMCH Final Recommendation #1) by 20 November, 
although it will be helpful to submit them, if any, as soon as possible. 
Provided such views are a proposal that meets the criteria for a Minority View 
(See Working Group Guidelines at Section 3.6), they will be documented in the 
Final Report in “Annex D - Working Group Members' Views on TMCH Final 
Recommendation #1”.



Kind regards,

Mary, Ariel, and Julie





Consensus Designations, per the GNSO Working Group Guidelines 
[gnso.icann.org], section 3.6 Standard Methodology for Making Decisions:



The Chair will be responsible for designating each position as having one of 
the following designations:

*	Full consensus - when no one in the group speaks against the recommendation 
in its last readings. This is also sometimes referred to as Unanimous 
Consensus.
*	Consensus - a position where only a small minority disagrees, but most 
agree.
*	Strong support but significant opposition - a position where, while most of 
the group supports a recommendation, there are a significant number of those 
who do not support it.
*	Divergence (also referred to as No Consensus) - a position where there isn't 
strong support for any particular position, but many different points of view. 
Sometimes this is due to irreconcilable differences of opinion and sometimes 
it is due to the fact that no one has a particularly strong or convincing 
viewpoint, but the members of the group agree that it is worth listing the 
issue in the report nonetheless.
*	Minority View - refers to a proposal where a small number of people support 
the recommendation.  This can happen in response to a Consensus, Strong 
support but significant opposition, and No Consensus; or, it can happen in 
cases where there is neither support nor opposition to a suggestion made by a 
small number of individuals.



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/attachments/20201123/678a0bf2/attachment-0001.html>