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

["Mike Rodenbaugh" <icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I agree with Roland on this, it should be clarified better. 

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-rap-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-rap-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Roland Perry
Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 3:11 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