<div dir="auto">Andrew... I have now understood your point....it is very tricky to catch up.. But you are totally right !<br><br><div data-smartmail="gmail_signature"><br><br>Regards<br>@__f_f__<br><a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/farellf">https://www.linkedin.com/in/farellf</a><br>________________________________<br>Mail sent from my mobile phone. Excuse for brievety.</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">Le 3 sept. 2017 16:24, "Andrew Sullivan" <<a href="mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com">ajs@anvilwalrusden.com</a>> a écrit :<br type="attribution"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">On Sun, Sep 03, 2017 at 02:26:26AM -0700, Farell Folly wrote:<br>
> @Andrew<br>
><br>
> What if we use the second possible way of understanding *optional* :<br>
><br>
> <<This won't be provided unless you know it >> instead of :<br>
<br>
Suppose I know it and I don't tell you? How can you tell the<br>
difference between "refused to provide" and "was not available to be<br>
provided"?<br>
<br>
A thing that is optional for you to provide me is provided at _your_<br>
option, not mine. My income tax rate is not optional, even though the<br>
government could set it differently.<br>
<br>
What people are arguing for here is an element that is mandatory to<br>
provide, if it exists. I have no issue that there might be such<br>
elements. I have a grave problem with pretending that they're<br>
optional to provide.<br>
<br>
Best regards,<br>
<br>
A<br>
<br>
--<br>
Andrew Sullivan<br>
<a href="mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com">ajs@anvilwalrusden.com</a><br>
______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org">gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/<wbr>listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg</a><br>
</blockquote></div></div>