Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Re: "Rules" for proposal-summaries and Principles-summaries

[Eric Brunner-Williams <ebw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Richard,

What the resolution states is not what the working group understood it 
to state, hence our original (and unanswered) questions to ... a void.
Further, the Board resolution is not couched in language intended to 
inform, and elicit, informed public comment.
The Board resolution language does not make plain that all 2001 and 
all 2004 registries have liabilities, either actual ownership 
interests by registrars, or use a registrar's technical facilities for 
the registry's service provider.
The uninformed reader of the Board resolution has no way to grasp from 
that one sentence that no registry contract will be concluded with any 
existing contracted party.
Since we know this, we should make it known to the reader, else the 
public comment we get will be unable to interpret those few words as 
we do, and therefore be unable to correctly associate our work with 
the Board's resolution.
Thanks for volunteering to do the 200 kind words on the sublime beauty 
of DAGv4, I suppose I'm a likely candidate for 200 kind words on the 
2% less sublime beauty of Nairobi.
Eric