Re: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] Financial instrument - correction

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

correction: i mean the text in version 2.13.2
must be getting flustered.

a.

On 2 Oct 2010, at 18:18, Avri Doria wrote:

> 
> Dear Eric,
> 
> Again thank you for instructing me in the fact that what non-qualified 
> applicants do is out of scope.  I truly appreciate this constant reminder, 
> because, obviously, otherwise I might just forget.
> 
> I asserted my opinion, but according to my beliefs of hI should behave as a 
> co-chair, I do not think I should argue the topic - as you know from other 
> conversations we have been part of in other groups, while I believe it is ok 
> for co-chair to asset an opinion, I do not believe they should get involved 
> in arguing for positions..  Take my opinion or ignore it, it is not my 
> opinion that counts but the opinion of the group at large.  For me to argue a 
> position on this would not only be appropriate (in my personal view), but 
> would require me to discuss the actions and contributions of those who are 
> non-qualified applicants.  And as you have reminded me, that is out of scope. 
>  Also as you will notice in my attempt to document this in the draft 12.2, I 
> did not include any mention of my opinion of what was required for a shared 
> risk group to be capable of covering risk.  So it is a moot point.
> 
> I hope my English was sufficiently understandable.  I apologize if other 
> things I have written have used language you did not understand.
> 
> a.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 2 Oct 2010, at 17:14, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote:
> 
>> Avri,
>> 
>> What non-qualified applicants do is out of scope.
>> 
>> Can you explain this:
>> 
>> "A shared risk group that only has needy applicants in it, is less likely to 
>> have the ability to cover the risk, than one that has various kinds of 
>> applicant."
>> 
>> Please use words I can understand, like the staff skills necessary to create 
>> the contractually obligated reports during periods of continuity operations, 
>> and the associated cost, and the operational staff and facilities necessary 
>> to operate during periods of continuity operations, and the associated cost.
>> 
>> Barring force majeure or economic contraction on a scale sufficient to 
>> affect two or more qualified operations simultaneously, for any group of N 
>> risk pooling applicants, as subsequent cooperating operators, the transition 
>> into (and possibly out of) continuity operations is mutually independent.
>> 
>> Please explain why N qualified applicants forming a shared risk group are 
>> "more likely to have the ability to cover the risk" if one non-qualified 
>> applicant joins the shared risk group?
>> 
>> Eric
> 
>