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

[Margie Milam <Margie.Milam@xxxxxxxxx>]

On the topic of AGB v4-  I suggest the best approach is to leave it with no 
summary.    I have discussed this internally and the viewpoint is that the 
language in the AGB should speak for itself.   If there are any ambiguities, 
Staff would rather hear about it from the Community through the public comment 
period and clarify it in the language of the AGB.   A summary drafted by Staff 
could be viewed as altering the language or interpretation of the AGB, so we 
prefer not to do that at this time.

Margie

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Jeff Eckhaus
Sent: Friday, July 16, 2010 4:59 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.