I agree. On Sat, Feb 2, 2019 at 8:23 AM SUN Lili <L.SUN@interpol.int> wrote:
I agree. After the 4th F2F meeting, it should be reflected as Full Consensus.
*From:* RDS-WHOIS2-RT [mailto:rds-whois2-rt-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Carlton Samuels *Sent:* Saturday, 2 February, 2019 7:45 AM *To:* Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> *Cc:* RDS WHOIS2-RT List <rds-whois2-rt@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [RDS-WHOIS2-RT] Measurement of Consensus
It should be repoeted as Full Consensus. Accentuate the positive!
Carlton
On Wed, 30 Jan 2019, 6:02 pm Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca wrote:
In our draft report, for each recommendation, we reported "Level of Consensus" as "No objections".
Shouldn't that be reported as "Full Consensus"?
That states it in a positive instead of negative way, and is also what is specified in our Terms of Reference.
Alan
_______________________________________________ RDS-WHOIS2-RT mailing list RDS-WHOIS2-RT@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rds-whois2-rt
_______________________________________________ RDS-WHOIS2-RT mailing list RDS-WHOIS2-RT@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rds-whois2-rt
-- SY, Dmitry Belyavsky