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

[Richard Tindal <richardtindal@xxxxxx>]

I think it needs a summary,  but I'm happy for the Staff to provide that,  or 
for the co-chairs to do it in conjunction with the Staff.

I think its very important for report readers to understand the baseline 
position in DAG4 ---  and I think many will not have that understanding without 
a summary.

RT


On Jul 16, 2010, at 4:59 PM, Jeff Eckhaus wrote:

> 
> I have been thinking about this and believe that a summary written by a WG 
> member is not appropriate. (No offense to Tindal on this)
> 
> The other proposals such RACK, JN2, Free trade were authored by members of 
> this group and asking the authors and collaborators of those proposals to 
> summarize their work makes sense.  They understand the ideas, details and 
> logic of their proposal and can express those in a summary.
> 
> The DAGv4 was written by Staff and to have a 3rd party summarize their work 
> could be lead to interpretations and conclusions that the authors did not 
> intend. If we want to include DAGv4 we should include the exact text in 
> DAGv4, no editing of it, not just a few bullet points , but the whole section 
> related to CO/VI. Alternatively we could just have it in the Annex
> 
> 
> Jeff Eckhaus
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On 
> Behalf Of Richard Tindal
> Sent: Friday, July 16, 2010 4:46 PM
> To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Re: "Rules" for proposal-summaries and 
> Principles-summaries
> 
> 
> 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
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> Please NOTE: This electronic message, including any attachments, may include 
> privileged, confidential and/or inside information owned by Demand Media, 
> Inc. Any distribution or use of this communication by anyone other than the 
> intended recipient(s) is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful.  If you are 
> not the intended recipient, please notify the sender by replying to this 
> message and then delete it from your system. Thank you.
>