Of the 9 groups on the EPDP, 7 have now either issued statements or given their level of consensus on the report. Not yet seen are the NCSG or the ISPCP. But the initial consensus level issue by the acting Chair who happens to be an NCSG member may indicate their level of support. Note that the Chair's assessment came out BEFORE any of the other groups spoke up - it was his best estimate. They make VERY interesting reading, and I strongly suggest that, at least for current ALAC members, you read them all. I am still expecting a GAC and SSAC statement, but it make take a bit of time. No idea whether NCSG or ISPCP will submit one. As expected, those with significant business interests (and paid participation!) have made the strongest and most detailed statements. I note that the level of consensus on some recommendation will be interesting. There are 7 groups on the EPDP and it looks like 4 or 5 may not support certain recommendations. It is not clear how the rating of the groups will impact consensus. My understanding is that all groups should be given equal weight, so 4 or 5 out of 9 would be DIVERGENCE (see the definitions of Consensus at the end of the Chair's document). On the other hand, the NCSG has repeatedly argued that for the groups within the GNSO, they must be weighted based on their votes in the GNSO Council (not quite but basically NCSG = Ry = Rr = (IPC+BC+ISPC)) and they have never said how the ACs would be factored into that. In the past, the GNSO Council has tended to approve recommendations with Full Consensus or Consensus. I don't think they have accepted recommendation with "Strong Support but Significant Opposition" and certainly not "Divergence". Perhaps Cheryl can confirm. As other things come in, I will forward them. What we must decide is whether any of this makes us want to either revise our statement or add an addendum. My initial inclination is to go the addendum route. Alan