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

[Eric Brunner-Williams <ebw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Richard,

I could be as well ... sleep deprived and plot challenged, but, 2% 
allows at least one, if not more, but not all, 
contracted-as-registries parties to enter into additional 
contracts-as-registries.
Again, our understanding of the DAGv4 is what counts, not the text 
itself, as that text doesn't walk down the existing contracted 
parties, as we all do, ticking them off as "dead" or "alive" for the 
purposes of determining the effect of the DAGv4 proposed policy.
I encourage you to continue with the DAGv4 summary.

Eric

On 7/16/10 7:45 PM, Richard Tindal wrote:
> 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