[soac-newgtldapsup-wg] Re: standards of agreement per August 2 agenda

[Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels@xxxxxxxxx>]

Dear Karla:
And so it is.

Best,
Carlton



==============================
Carlton A Samuels
Mobile: 876-818-1799
*Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround*
=============================


On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 5:00 PM, Karla Valente <karla.valente@xxxxxxxxx>wrote:

> Dear Carlton, Rafik,****
>
> ** **
>
> Below are the standards of agreement I understand you both directed staff
> to use for the Final Report. Seth will continue to adopt this standard,
> unless we hear from you otherwise. These are the same used in the first
> Milestone Report.****
>
> ** **
>
> NOTE: The main issue for staff now is to have clear direction where to
> apply these terms throughout the document and capture the correct views and
> conclusions of the WG members, which is not always clear based on the
> discussions (e-mails and transcripts). ****
>
> ** **
>
> *Standards of Agreement*
>
> ** **
>
> The WG followed specific guidelines to demonstrate the various levels of
> views and conclusions in this Report. The following was used throughout the
> document:****
>
> ** **
>
> i.              Unanimous or full consensus, when no one in the group
> speaks against the recommendation in its last readings; ****
>
> ii.             Rough or near consensus - a position where only a small
> minority disagrees but most agree.  This is sometimes referred to as
> consensus; ****
>
> iii.            Strong support but significant opposition - a position
> where while most of the group supports a recommendation, there are a
> significant number of those who do not support it;****
>
> iv.           No consensus, also referred to as divergence - a position
> where there in not a strong support for any particular position, but many
> different points of view.  Sometimes this is due to irreconcilable
> differences of opinion and sometimes it is due to the fact that no one has a
> particularly strong or convincing viewpoint, but the members of the group
> agree that it is worth listing the issue in the report nonetheless;****
>
> v.            Minority refers to a proposal where a small number of people
> support the recommendation. This can happen in response to a Consensus,
> Strong Support but Significant Opposition, and No Consensus, or can happen
> in cases where there is neither support nor opposition to suggestion made by
> a small number of individuals.****
>
> ** **
>
> In cases of Consensus, Strong Support but Significant Opposition, and No
> Consensus, an effort is made to document that variance in viewpoints and to
> present any Minority recommendations that may have been made. The
> documentation of Minority recommendation normally depends on text offered by
> the proponent.****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> Thank you,****
>
> ** **
>
> Karla Valente****
>
> Director, gTLD Registry Programs****
>
> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)  ****
>
> Direct:  + 1 310 301 3878  ****
>
> Mobile:  +1 310 936 4639  ****
>
> *Skype: **kdlvalente*****
>
> ** **
>