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

[carlos dionisio aguirre <carlosaguirre62@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Dear Tijani:

In this case I only express my idea about time of reduction the financial 
Continued Operation Instrument period. When I said: is not a substancial 
difference between a year and 6 months, I was talking about that only. 
Of course the difference between paragraphs showed by you in your mail, is 
substancial and we need to define or clarify what is the final position of the 
WG.

I feel the idea of the WG after discussions, it is what you put in green 
colour. and I support it.

But I also feel that the discussion started to be, in many points, useless 
because some of us are more interested to be protagonist than be effectives in 
our work. I don't want attack anyone, but is a strong feeling inside me, that I 
need to release. may be I'm wrong
 
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 




From: tijani.benjemaa@xxxxxxxx
To: carlosaguirre62@xxxxxxxxxxx; avri@xxxxxxx; soac-newgtldapsup-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] rev 2.19-1 after listening to the phone 
call.
Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2010 11:38:19 +0100






















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.

> 

> 

> 

>