Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] VI Use Case Template, PLEASE READ EMAIL,> BEFORE VIEWINGATTACHMENT!!!!!

[Eric Brunner-Williams <ebw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Milton,

I suspect that for the 1.6 million women in the class, even if the
"registry" is simply a plaintiff bar case management tool, this is
more "public" than any number, likely much smaller, of unrelated
registrations in Verisign, or Afilias, or NeuStar managed namespaces.

I also think you may not have grasped the point that Tom, and I
offered, which is that if we don't agree what an example means, that
it may not be useful. The discussion of meaning was to provide you
with an instance of a discussion in which the use of examples was the
subject of consideration, for what they make more comprehensible, and
for what they make less comprehensible. Tom's preference is not to
misuse some legal entities for hypos, and not, I suspect, because he
has any particular interest in your right to write arbitrarily, but
for reasons having to do with mutual intelligibility, arising from
agreed meanings of the things we use to reason with, examples included.

It was not offered to provide you with an opportunity to characterize
the "logic of trademark protectionism" as "a fantasy". What either of
us believes about the ends of some debate is immaterial. The question
there, and here, is what makes good examples. Similarly, I suspect
Tom's original note was not offered to provide you with an opportunity
to ask if he was familiar with concepts such as freedom of expression
and freedom of thought.

I've corrected the subject line, as this discussion isn't about some
VI use case template, but about whether we agree to respect
collaborators' concerns that some "example(s)" distract, or reduce
mutual intelligibility, more then they illuminate. If not, then we
have schismatic views and ensembles of private truths, which will make
policy formation less certain.

In passing I can't agree with your claim that a SR is fundamentally
private. Had I used the Bhopal Gas or Chernobyl Reactor events as
examples a  significant number of the subjects of the registry as a
case management tool would have been dead, and unlikely for that and a
number of other reasons, to have pursued a public event created
identity using the registries available in 1984 and 1986, respectively.

Eric