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
*M*editerranean *F*ederation of*I*nternet *A*ssociations
*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.
>
>
>
>
>
>