RE: [gnso-igo-ingo] Consensus Level

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

Alan,

I was not suggesting that the Council should make policy changes but rather 
that via its bottom-up mechanisms will be able to determine the level of 
support from all SGs & Constituencies.

Chuck

-----Original Message-----
From: Alan Greenberg [mailto:alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2013 7:31 PM
To: Gomes, Chuck; Kiran Malancharuvil
Cc: Thomas Rickert; gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-igo-ingo] Consensus Level

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