[RDS-WHOIS2-RT] Measurement of Consensus

[Dmitry Belyavsky]

I agree.

On Sat, Feb 2, 2019 at 8:23 AM SUN Lili <L.SUN at 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 at icann.org] *On Behalf
> Of *Carlton Samuels
> *Sent:* Saturday, 2 February, 2019 7:45 AM
> *To:* Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>
> *Cc:* RDS WHOIS2-RT List <rds-whois2-rt at 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 at 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 at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rds-whois2-rt
>
> _______________________________________________
> RDS-WHOIS2-RT mailing list
> RDS-WHOIS2-RT at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rds-whois2-rt
>


-- 
SY, Dmitry Belyavsky
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rds-whois2-rt/attachments/20190202/5a145f73/attachment-0001.html>