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

[Andrew Mack <amack@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Avri,

I hear you.  As for timing, I think we can and should finish up soon, and don't 
think we're that far from where we need to be.  


As I said in my email, let's discuss the areas -- and there aren't many  -- 
where there seems to be a disconnect between the poll and the  dialogue.  I 
believe these issues can be worked through relatively  quickly if we work 
together.  


A



 
Andrew A. Mack 
Principal
AMGlobal Consulting

+1-202-256-1077  
amack@xxxxxxxxxxxx  
www.amglobal.com




________________________________
From: Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>
To: soac-newgtldapsup-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Sent: Fri, October 22, 2010 9:50:03 AM
Subject: Re: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] 2.19-3


Hi Andrew, 

The point about the poll, in addition to the issue I have brought earlier about 
design the questions and then testing them is that polls bring out the opinions 
of the silent.  Yes, the few vocal people in the group may have appeared to 
have 
consensus, but that does not mean that they had the consensus of the whole 
group.

At this point, I am no longer trying to rush it.  We will finish it when we 
finish it, and if it is late, we can console ourselves that we tried, but that 
the group just could not get there in time.

a.

On 22 Oct 2010, at 04:55, Andrew Mack wrote:

> 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 
> amack@xxxxxxxxxxxx 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
>