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

[Baudouin SCHOMBE <baudouin.schombe@xxxxxxxxx>]

As for standards, you have been explicit. It is sufficiently detailed. It's
good.
Where there is more clarity, it is about consensus. If there is
opposition, there
is no consensus. We need the opposite side argues the reasons for the
opposition. These arguments will be appreciated by other members who were
not opposed. The ensuing debate, it can be reached common ground shared by
both parties.

Baudouin

2011/8/4 Karla Valente <karla.valente@xxxxxxxxx>

> 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*****
>
> ** **
>



-- 
SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN
CENTRE AFRICAIN D'ECHANGE CULTUREL/
ACADEMIE DES TIC
FACILITATEUR GAID/AFRIQUE Membre
At-Large Member
NCSG Member

email:baudouin.schombe@xxxxxxxxx
         baudouin.schombe@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
tél:+243998983491
skype:b.schombe
wite web:http://webmail.ticafrica.net
blog:http://akimambo.unblog.fr