RE: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] 2.19-3

["Tijani BEN JEMAA" <tijani.benjemaa@xxxxxxxx>]

Avri, Eric, Andrew and all,

 

I do share the concerns about the survey result. The WG can decide whether
to:

*       Consider the result of the survey for all questions without
exception.
*       Ignore it
*       Re-discuss the point where the survey result is in opposite
direction of the calls discussions
*       Organize a new survey with very clear and explicit questions for the
few points where there is conflict between the calls discussion and the
result of the previous survey.
*       Etc.

 

It is the WG decision. My preference is for the bullet point 4. But due to
time constraint, I’m ok with bullet point 3.

 

What I refuse strongly is to stick the survey result for some points and
discuss or ask new questions for others.

 

I think that for today call, the first point of the agenda should be “what
to do with the survey result?” I will be ok with any consensus on the way we
will treat it, but the decision must be taken inside the working group, and
must be for all the points of the survey.   

 

------------------------------------------------------------------

Tijani BEN JEMAA

Directeur exécutif

Fédération Méditerranéenne des Associations d'Internet

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 Andrew Mack
Envoyé : vendredi 22 octobre 2010 03:56
À : Avri Doria; soac-newgtldapsup-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Objet : Re: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] 2.19-3

 

Avri and all,

I agree with a number of the things said in earlier comments.  Two points
stick out where I believe the wording of the report go well beyond the
discussion we have and should be amended:

1) to the question of whether entrepreneurs from difficult markets would be
eligible, this was the gist of what seemed like a very strong consensus over
the course of some months -- a consensus led and articulated by the WG
members from and with the greatest experience in those markets.  I think the
poll mis-states the views of the group and we should discuss

2) on IDN support, the majority view called for endorsement from the
community, but as Elaine and others have said, wording that calls for some
sort of endorsement from community, NGO AND local companies is likely
impractical and was not what we discussed over these many months.  In both
cases, the WG called for a connection to the community, but creating a
standard asking for the endorsement by all three groups is not what the
group has called for.  I'd like to suggest this language should be changed,
at least to and/or and in both cases I'd prefer to see language something
like "endorsement from community groups, NGOs or companies from the
script-linguistic group" -- something that is practical and fits the gist of
our discussion.

Finally and generally, I understand the importance of coming to decisions
and I respect the effort to put together a poll on that basis.  That said,
let's be careful not to disregard the many many hours of people who took the
time to slog through these issues and make the poll our one and final
determinant.  Where the consensus of the call and that of the poll differ,
let's discuss and understand why.  If the poll results show opinions
different from the group's core participants, let's at least reflect this
difference somehow in our language.

Thanks.  Andrew

 

Andrew A. Mack 

Principal

AMGlobal Consulting

+1-202-256-1077  

 <mailto:amack@xxxxxxxxxxxx> amack@xxxxxxxxxxxx  

 <http://www.amglobal.com/> www.amglobal.com

 

 

  _____  

From: Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>
To: soac-newgtldapsup-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Sent: Thu, October 21, 2010 3:20:13 PM
Subject: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] 2.19-3


Hi,

Took the comments received, made some changes, responded to some comments.

Lets us this one for tomorrow - not greatly different - no substantive
changes (in my opinion) were made.

a.