RE: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] rev 2.19-1 after listening to the phone call.

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

Carlos,

 

Do you mean that there is no substantial difference between the following
languages (one is in black, the other is in green)?

 

*        There was No Consensus on whether that the period for the financial
Continued Operation Instrument be reduced from 

*       3years to 6 months, this duration still being twice the duration
that is currently defined in the ICANN gTLD Registry Failover Plan of 15
June 2008
*       or, that financial Continued Operation Instrument period be
shortened from 3 years to 1 year.

 

*        There was Consensus that the period for the financial Continued
Operation Instrument be reduced from 3 years to 6 months, this duration
still being twice the duration that is currently defined in the ICANN gTLD
Registry Failover Plan of 15 June 2008.

*        There was a Minority view that financial Continued Operation
Instrument period for the financial instrument be shortened from 3 years to
1 year.

 

And between:

 

There was a Minority view that entrepreneurs, who otherwise meet other
criteria in this section, in those markets where market constraints make
normal business operations more difficult should be eligible for support.
There was a Strong Suport but significant oppostions in the group that for
profit enterprises should not be included in the categories receiving aid.

 

Entrepreneurs, who otherwise meet other criteria in this section, in those
markets where market constraints make normal business operations more
difficult. Consensus

There was a Minority view in the group that for profit enterprises should
not be included in the categories receiving aid.

 

And others.

 

There is in some cases opposite substantial meaning as you can notice. 

 

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

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 carlos dionisio
aguirre
Envoyé : jeudi 21 octobre 2010 20:14
À : avri@xxxxxxx; soac-newgtldapsup-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Objet : RE: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] rev 2.19-1 after listening to the phone
call.

 

I completely agree with Avri. this is not a substancial difference and
nothing change in my humble apinion. 

my two cents. 


Carlos Dionisio Aguirre


ALAC member by LACRALO - ICANN

Abogado - Especialista en Derecho de los Negocios

Sarmiento 71 - 4to. 18 Cordoba - Argentina -
*54-351-424-2123 / 423-5423
http://ar.ageiadensi.org 





> Subject: Re: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] rev 2.19-1 after listening to the
phone call.
> From: avri@xxxxxxx
> Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2010 00:05:24 +0500
> To: soac-newgtldapsup-wg@xxxxxxxxx
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> But we held a poll. 
> 
> On 21 Oct 2010, at 21:28, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote:
> 
> > 
> > On continuity:
> > 
> > I agree with Tijani on the WG's on-list and on-call record is that there
was more support for 6 months than for 12 or 36
> 
> on this one the wording on the poll could be seen as ambiguous. 
> And that is why I asked the question which no one has answered yet.
> 
> Tell does it really make that great a diference between 6 months and 12
months?
> 
> I understand that there was consensus for less than 36. but is 6 versus 12
a criticial issue?
> if so, why?
> 
> 
> > months.
> > 
> > On eligibility:
> > 
> > I agree with Tijani on the WG's on-list and on-call record is that the
opposition to support for entrepreneurs from developing countries who meet
the need criterion was very limited.
> 
> On this one, I think the pool was quite clear and I interpret it as people
who had not spoken up before, spoke up in the poll.
> 
> That is part of running the poll.
> 
> a.
> 
> 
> 
> 

  _____