RE: [gnso-igo-ingo] Consensus Level

[Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>]

I generally agree with the assessments with the following exceptions:

IOC-1: Looks like Strong support but significant opposition (SSbSO)to me.
IOC-2: SSbSO
   Note that 1 and 2 receved virtually identical answers to 3 and 4 
which were rated SSbSO.
IGO-2: SSbSO
IGO-4: Looks more like Consensus to me.

General-2: Looks like a Minority View (MV)
General-4: mv
General-7: Given that it is highly unlikely that we will make claims 
permanent for TMs, this is a MV.
Alan



> From: owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Thomas Rickert
> Sent: Friday, September 06, 2013 3:55 PM
> To: gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [gnso-igo-ingo] Consensus Level
>
> All,
> as discussed during the last WG call, please find attached the 
> assessment of the consensus level I made as chair of this WG.
> Please do take the time and verify whether you agree with the 
> determination I made. That means that I would like to ask you 
> whether you share my view of the consensus level inside the group 
> for the individual recommendations. The task is not to say whether 
> you like the outcome of the consensus call or not, but to let the 
> group know if you disagree with the level of consensus I have 
> spelled out in the attached document. Thus, it may well be that you 
> take a different position and do not like that a certain position 
> has reached consensus or another recommendation is tagged 
> "divergence", but you can still confirm whether you agree with my 
> assessment or not. For the sake of making things easier, you do not 
> have to send your agreement to the list, but it is important that 
> you speak out if you think I made a mistake. What I would least like 
> to see is that we get an issue or even formal steps taken against 
> the determination of the consensus level. I am more than happy to 
> discuss each and every individual point, both on the list as well as 
> with you individually, should you wish so.
> How did I get to the results you find in the document?
>
> To avoid duplication, I would like to refer you to the transcript of 
> the this week's call where we went through the respective rules of 
> the WG Guidelines. In brief:
> Determining the consensus level is an iterative process. Hence, I 
> have not only taken the outcome of the consensus call, the deadline 
> of which ended earlier this week.
> I have looked at records of our deliberations and inputs that were 
> provided by various groups. In particular, I have taken a look at 
> the positions that were taken by those that did not respond to the 
> consensus call as their opinion should not get lost in the process.
> As a consequence, the attached document shows some changes compared 
> to earlier versions of the paper.
> Please allow me to make a personal remark: As a group, we have 
> developed all the remarkable recommendations you find in the 
> document and now I find myself as an individual determining the 
> consensus level. That is quite odd. So please help me to get this 
> right to do the work of the group justice.
> Thanks and have a great weekend,
> Thomas