<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] Prioritization
- To: "'SOAC-newgtldapsup-wg@xxxxxxxxx'" <soac-newgtldapsup-wg@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] Prioritization
- From: "Tijani BEN JEMAA" <tijani.benjemaa@xxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2010 17:57:41 +0100
Avri and all,
I didnt want to enter into this kind of dialogue. What I do want is a
consensus, and if impossible, a clear objective measure of the support to
each position. Its not to make my position wining, but to give the most
appropriate recommendation to the board in the benefit of the needy
applicants. By the way, Im ready for any language modification, but we have
to decide on the principle of giving the priority to a category of
applicants or not.
The poll I proposed was to have the position of those who didnt express
themselves, and also to measure the degree of support for each position. I
do have an entire confidence in our co-chairs, but its better to have
figures rather than impressions.
Another point: The WG members will express their support or their
disagreement to the text I proposed for paragraph 3.2.1. I would like to see
the text of the other position so that members will agree or disagree on a
concrete text not on prioritizing or not prioritizing.
In conclusion, first, we need a text proposal for the prioritization. And
the WG members will choose between it and the one I proposed, or perhaps
come up with another text. I do hope that we can reach consensus on a single
text. If it is not possible, lets make each member express his/her
preference, and we continue our work.
Thanks
------------------------------------------------------------------
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 : lundi 6 septembre 2010 15:56
À : SOAC-newgtldapsup-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Objet : Re: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] Prioritization
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. Lets 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 dont understand the benefit of giving a category the priority. We
need to put the criteria and let applicants compete. I dont feel its 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 dont understand the benefit of giving a category the priority. We
need to put the criteria and let applicants compete. I dont feel its fair
to prioritize a specific category; its 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>
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|