RE: [gnso-igo-ingo] Consensus Level

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I am pretty sure that Thomas already reached out to them.  I agree that it is 
better late than never but I don't think we should delay finalizing our report 
because of late responses.  At this point, I think the best thing we can do is 
agree on the Final Report and send it to the Council.  Any discrepancies in 
terms of support levels can be ironed out in the public comment period and via 
GNSO processes at the Council level.

Chuck

-----Original Message-----
From: Kiran Malancharuvil [mailto:Kiran.Malancharuvil@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2013 6:39 PM
To: Gomes, Chuck
Cc: Alan Greenberg; Thomas Rickert; gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-igo-ingo] Consensus Level

Who are our WG reps from those groups? Maybe we can reach out to them and get 
an official position? Better late than never?

Thanks,

Kiran

Sent from my iPhone

On Sep 10, 2013, at 6:36 PM, "Gomes, Chuck" 
<cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:

Thanks Alan.  I understand your rationale but I think it would make more sense 
if we had a better response to the consensus call.  As it stands, there were no 
responses from three voting groups on the Council: the RrSG, the BC & the 
ISPCP.  That's big gap in my opinion and very unfortunate and I question 
whether we should reach conclusions about WG level of support without taking 
into consideration what participants from those three groups communicated in 
our WG efforts.

Chuck

From: Alan Greenberg [mailto:alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2013 5:56 PM
To: Gomes, Chuck; Thomas Rickert; 
gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: [gnso-igo-ingo] Consensus Level

Largely on the responses. My inclination (and should have said) is that if we 
are going to factor in other views not represented in the formal replies, that 
they need to be sumarized so there is something less nebulous that dozens of 
hours of MP3 and transcripts to refer to.

Alan

At 10/09/2013 05:34 PM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:

Alan,

Did you base your assessments strictly on the response to the consensus call or 
did you also take into consideration the work of WG over the last few months  
as Thomas tried to do.

Chuck

From: Alan Greenberg [ mailto:alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2013 1:24 PM
To: Gomes, Chuck; Thomas Rickert; 
gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: [gnso-igo-ingo] Consensus Level

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> [ 
mailto:owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Thomas Rickert
Sent: Friday, September 06, 2013 3:55 PM
To: gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx<mailto: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