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

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

No Avri, the survey is a very objective way to find the right consensus.

 


If the questions were posed in the right manner, I mean if all the elements
were included in the question, the result of the survey will necessarily
reflect the point of view of the WG members on the issue. 


 


For example, for ref #2.7(a), the question was:  


“For-profit enterprises should not be included in the categories receiving
aid”. And the answer should be “agreed” or “not agreed”.


 


If it was: “needy For-profit enterprises from developing countries should
not be included in the categories receiving aid”, I’m sure the result will
be the opposite.


 


So the problem is not in the survey principle, it’s in how it was done.


 


I’m not complaining. I want here to thank Evan for organizing the survey. He
took the sentences where there was not consensus, and put them in the
survey. With regard to the time constraint, I fully understand that we can
do it in this way.


 


Last point: Under the pressure of the time constraint, we don’t have to give
the board something that is not reflecting the view of the WG members. We
need all to be open to any idea and any discussion to reach the needed
consensus.


 


Thank you for your understanding


 

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

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 : jeudi 21 octobre 2010 20:38
À : soac-newgtldapsup-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Objet : Re: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] rev 2.19-1 after listening to the phone
call.

 

 

 

On 22 Oct 2010, at 00:18, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote:

 

> On 10/21/10 3:05 PM, Avri Doria wrote:

>> 

>> Hi,

>> 

>> But we held a poll.

> 

> Where are the results? Not the summary, but results that show how each WG
member is represented as having indicated a preference?

> 

 

Not sure, I think Evan was going to release that.

 

but are you claiming we lied?

or do you just want to try and get people to change their poll?

 

and people wonder why i hate unscientific quick polling and think that it
causes more problems than it solves.

 

a.

 

 

> 

>> 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.

>> 

>> 

>> 

>> 

>> 

>> 

>