RE: REMINDER FW: [gnso-rap-dt] For review - RAP WG Status Update

["Greg Aaron" <gaaron@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hello, Roland.  I think that the statement is accurate -- it just says there
consensus in group that we will use this working definition in the next
phase of our work.  The statement is careful to note that it is a working
definition and subject to additional work if we like.

So, I don't worry that the definition is locked in forever or that anyone
can reference it as binding precedent.  WG products are not locked in until
a formal paper is written, and at some point we will formally record the
levels of consensus on the point.  (The WG Processes require such:
https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?working_group_process) 

All best,
--Greg 


-----Original Message-----
From: Roland Perry [mailto:roland@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 6:11 AM
To: gnso-rap-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: REMINDER FW: [gnso-rap-dt] For review - RAP WG Status Update


In message <C6455729.44EA%marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>, at 00:11:04 on Fri, 
29 May 2009, Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx> writes

>Please feel free to share your comments / suggestions with the mailing 
>list and/or provide edits to the attached document.

Where it says:

*       This is a working definition as per group consensus on April 27, 
2009 and may be re-visited should the WG find it inadequate after 
examining some specific examples.

I do not consider that it can be described as a consensus when there is 
such an important re-visitation anticipated. I would suggest that the 
definition has merely been "parked" awaiting the discussion of specific 
examples.
-- 
Roland Perry