[RDS-WHOIS2-RT-Leadership_Staff] RDS-WHOIS2 Review Team

[Alan Greenberg]

Hi Keith,

I am sending this message as Chair of the RDS-WHOIS2 Review Team to 
update you on the status of the Review.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

Warm regards, Alan