Re: [gnso-igo-ingo] Consensus Level

[Thomas Rickert <rickert@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Alan and all,
the groups have been reached out to. I will provide information on that in our 
call later today. 

Best,
Thomas

=============
thomas-rickert.tel
+49.228.74.898.0

Am 11.09.2013 um 01:31 schrieb 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
>