RE: [gnso-igo-ingo] Consensus Level

[Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>]

Chuck, I find that problematic. We know that the current philosophy 
(and one that I think that you have supported) is that Council should 
not make policy changes, but just remand a report back to the WG if 
there is a problems.
Alan

At 10/09/2013 06:52 PM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
> 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