Re: [Ianaplan] last call and IESG processing summary for draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response

Sounds like double positive since consensus is a form of agreement.

How about:

"The WG achieved consensus not to include the recommendations."

Cheers!
sent from Google nexus 4
kindly excuse brevity and typos.
On 7 Jan 2015 20:32, "Brian E Carpenter" <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Try "The WG consensus did not agree with including the recommendations."
>
> Regards
>    Brian
>
> On 08/01/2015 07:05, Milton L Mueller wrote:
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >>> I am afraid this is incorrect. The WG consensus said that it was not
> >> necessary to specify the exact supplemental agreements to be negotiated
> -
> >> that this should be left to the IAOC. My understanding of the document,
> and
> >> my basis for agreeing to rough consensus, was that the IAOC could pursue
> >> these or not, as it saw fit.
> >>
> >> I think we may be trying to say the same thing. The document discusses
> what
> >> needs to be achieved. The WG's opinion of what is necessary for the
> >> transition. But the WG did not want to put into the document (a)
> detailed
> >> contractual language as that is an IAOC task or (b) additional requests
> >> beyond the ones listed in the document. However, the IAOC certainly is
> in
> >> charge of all specific contract language already, and will be also in
> this case.
> >> They will also consider any additional elements that they think will be
> useful
> >> or needed, as they will always.
> >
> > Great, this is my understanding, too. So you should modify the
> assessment of my comments because they say "The recommendation also states
> that the advocated actions are in line with the current IANAPLAN draft. The
> IAOC has taken this input for consideration. It should be noted that these
> recommendations were discussed as part of the WG deliberations, however.
> The WG consensus did not agree with the recommendations."
> >
> > That's the part that is not correct.
> >
> > The WG consensus was that there should not be detailed contractual
> language in the document, as you say. It did not, however, foreclose or
> negate the suggestions I made for future IAOC requests, it simply said that
> they should not be specified or required by the IANAPlan document. The IAOC
> retains the ability to request them if it thinks it appropriate in the near
> term negotiations.
> >
> > I hope you understand the distinction. It was crucial to achieving rough
> consensus.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Ianaplan mailing list
> > Ianaplan@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ianaplan mailing list
> Ianaplan@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan
>