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

[Richard Tindal <richardtindal@xxxxxx>]

Understand and agree

Given all you say about Nairobi though - how could you (or anyone except a 
board member) turn it into other words?   

I don't think any of us are able to turn Nairobi into a summary - hence I think 
we just include the 70 word resolution itself.

RT


On Jul 16, 2010, at 4:06 PM, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote:

> 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