Re: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] Prioritization

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

As I suggested, Working Groups are not supposed to be about voting.  They are 
about the attempt to find levels of consensus, the fuller the better.

I am personally against votes in working groups, because as we have seen after 
such a vote, or even a poll, people do not agree about what the vote means.  
Also there are no specific number that mark  near consensus versus strong 
support.  In other groups that have used polls, we have then gotten into long 
discussions about what to do with the polls.

I believe that as other people participate in this conversations, we can better 
determine the level of support each statement has.  For example as other people 
chime in support of the various positions we can tell the level of support.  
And the chairs, separately or together, estimate the level of support and we 
see how many disagree with these statement, we can get closer to an accurate 
statement on the level of support.

My perception in this case is that we had a previous WG position for 
limitation.  The WG then discussed your issues and moved from the position 
documented in the snapshot to one of Prioritization.   At this point you are 
the main person arguing against Prioritization.  So yes, at this point, I think 
we either have near consensus or at the least strong support for Prioritization 
and one voice and perhaps some support for no limitations other than financial 
basis.

I suggest that people continue discussing it and that more people weigh in with 
their points of view.  That will let the group know and inform the 
determination of the level of support better.

Thanks

a.

On 6 Sep 2010, at 14:48, Tijani BEN JEMAA wrote:

> Thanks Avri,
>  
> Is the « strong support for prioritization » what we had last call? I suggest 
> that a vote be organized to make everyone express his/her self.
>  
> I send you hereafter a complete language to explain why I took this position, 
> with a text proposal for the paragraph 3.2.1 “who should receive support”.  
>  
> ---------
>  
> Our Working Group was created according to the Board Resolution 20. Its 
> mission comes also from this resolution. Let’s see what it says: (see 
> attached resolution 20)
>  
> We can notice that for the supported applicants:
> 
>       • It emphasizes (twice) on inclusiveness of the new gTLD program as an 
> objective of ICANN
>       • It also emphasizes (again twice) on the need as a criterion for 
> support (applicants requiring assistance).
>       • It specifies needy applicants from developing countries, but not any 
> category of application.
>  
> With this in mind, I had a long and deep reflection about the issue of 
> prioritization of ethnic and linguistic category of applicants, and tried to 
> put examples to see how things may go. I found that prioritizing any category 
> will de facto exclude the others because as you all said, and as we put it 
> explicitly in our report, the number of supported applicants will be too 
> small, and thus, only applicants from the prioritized category will get 
> assistance.
>  
> Despite my willing to find consensus, and to make things advancing, I still 
> don’t understand the benefit of giving a category the priority. We need to 
> put the criteria and let applicants compete. I don’t feel it’s fair to 
> prioritize a specific category because:
> 
>       • It makes our action exclusive, not in line with the inclusiveness 
> objective of resolution 20
>       • It is a subjective and arbitrary decision.
>  
> I do accept to prioritize the relatively well defined and identifiable groups 
> that would be not controversial to support, but not a specific category.  
>  
> I propose the attached language for “3.2.1 Who should receive support” (line: 
> 174 – 200)
>  
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> Tijani BEN JEMAA
> Executive Director
> Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations
> Phone : + 216 70 825 231
> Mobile : + 216 98 330 114
> Fax     : + 216 70 825 231
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : owner-soac-newgtldapsup-wg@xxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-soac-newgtldapsup-wg@xxxxxxxxx] De la part de Avri Doria
> Envoyé : dimanche 5 septembre 2010 18:20
> À : SOAC-newgtldapsup-wg@xxxxxxxxx
> Objet : Re: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] Prioritization
>  
>  
> Hi,
>  
> Thanks for this note. 
>  
> If we can't reach a full consensus on the point of prioritization, we may 
> take he opportunity to list both option with the reasons for them.
>  
> At this point I think there is:
> 1. Consensus against limitation
> 2. strong support for prioritization and
> 3.  some support against any prioritization.
>  
> (Please let the list know if I am wrong)
>  
> I suggest that unless things change, this is the way it be written up.  And I 
> suggest that Tijani and others who are against any sort of prioritization 
> craft a note (the note below may be the start of that note). I recommend the 
> same for those who favor prioritization.
>  
> I also recommend that the discussion of the levels of support and reason for 
> them be included in line in the report and not hidden away in an back-matter.
>  
> Thanks
>  
> a.
>  
>  
>  
> On 5 Sep 2010, at 13:06, Tijani BEN JEMAA wrote:
>  
> > Dear all,
> > 
> > I had a long and deep reflection about the issue of prioritization of 
> > ethnic and linguistic category of applicants, and tried to put examples to 
> > see how things may go. I found that prioritizing any category will de facto 
> > exclude the others because as you all said, and as we put it explicitly in 
> > our report, the number of supported applicants will be too small, and thus, 
> > only applicants from the prioritized category will get assistance.
> > 
> > Despite my willing to find consensus, and to make things advancing, I still 
> > don’t understand the benefit of giving a category the priority. We need to 
> > put the criteria and let applicants compete. I don’t feel it’s fair to 
> > prioritize a specific category; it’s a subjective (arbitrary) decision to 
> > do so.
> > 
> > I do accept to prioritize the relatively well defined and identifiable 
> > groups that would be not controversial to support, but not a specific 
> > category. 
> > 
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Tijani BEN JEMAA
> > Executive Director
> > Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations
> > Phone : + 216 70 825 231
> > Mobile : + 216 98 330 114
> > Fax     : + 216 70 825 231
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------
> > 
> > De : owner-soac-newgtldapsup-wg@xxxxxxxxx 
> > [mailto:owner-soac-newgtldapsup-wg@xxxxxxxxx] De la part de Karla Valente
> > Envoyé : samedi 4 septembre 2010 03:40
> > À : SOAC-newgtldapsup-wg@xxxxxxxxx
> > Objet : [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] redlined Summary Analysis - JAS WG
> > 
> > Dear all,
> > 
> > Please see attached the redlined Summary Analysis we worked on today.
> > 
> > Thank you,
> > 
> > Karla
>  
>  
> <Resolution 20.doc><Who should receive support.doc>