>From my following of the topic, that concensus was really rough, in particular the part about publishing the scans on-line. That represents a significant difference in ease access which I think required more than the very very rough concensus you seem to think you found. On Sun, 6 May 2012, IETF Chair wrote: > We have heard from many community participants, and consensus is quite rough on this topic. The IESG discussed this thread and reached two conclusions: > > (1) Rough consensus: an open and transparent standards process is more important to the IETF than privacy of blue sheet information. > > (2) Rough consensus: inclusion of email addresses is a good way to distinguish participants with the same or similar names. > > > Based on these conclusions, the plan is to handle blue sheets as follows: > > - Continue to collect email addresses on blue sheets; > > - Scan the blue sheet and include the image in the proceedings for the WG session; > > - Add indication to top of the blue sheet so people know it will be part of the proceedings; and > > - Discard paper blue sheets after scanning. > > > On behalf of the IESG, > Russ > >