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

[Milton L Mueller <mueller@xxxxxxx>]

Jeff,
I don't agree. DAGv4 is pretty simple in concept, it's an attempt to translate 
the Nairobi resolution into practice. I don't have any objection to Richard 
summarizing it. 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-
> feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Jeff Eckhaus
> Sent: Friday, July 16, 2010 7:59 PM
> To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Re: "Rules" for proposal-summaries and
> Principles-summaries
> 
> 
> 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.