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

[Richard Tindal <richardtindal@xxxxxx>]

I may be suffering from some of Mikey's sleep deprivation, and losing the plot 
on this,  but this is what I'm asking  ---  Given that the Nairobi resolution 
has already been turned into detailed DAG4 language (which we will summarize) 
what is the point of us trying to reinterpret the resolution?

R



On Jul 16, 2010, at 4:36 PM, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote:

> wow. i feel like i wrote a vanishing note.
> 
> Only our common (mis)interpretation of the resolution can explain our acts in 
> consequence.
> 
> Can you think of a currently contracted party not eliminated from 
> re-obtaining contracted party status, as a registry, by the Nairobi 
> resolution?
> 
> Do you think that is the self-evident reading of the Nairobi resolution?
> 
> I don't.
> 
> Only we can explain our reading of the text, and therefore our subsequent 
> acts.
> 
> Eric
> 
> On 7/16/10 7:23 PM, Richard Tindal wrote:
>> 
>> 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
>> 
>> 
>> 
>