Re: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] Financial instrument

[Eric Brunner-Williams <ebw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 10/2/10 6:18 PM, 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.
The apparent sarcasm is surprising given your prior note in which you 
disclose that your conception is "the reasonable applicant", which is 
not the _qualified_ applicant.
> 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.
As the person holding the pen, your responses are hardly neutral.

> I hope my English was sufficiently understandable.  I apologize if other things 
> I have written have used language you did not understand.
Very funny.

I've spent enough time writing to Staff, writing to the SOAC list, on 
what the purpose of the instrument can be, and how the cost ICANN 
inflicts, in addition to the fees, and in excess of the costs 
inflicted on the 2001 and 2003 applicants, may be reduced.
Five notes and the time to write each in the past five days.

I will submit a separate statement on the issue.

Eric

> 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