[registrars] WLS and the lessons we can retain
Ross Wm. Rader
ross at tucows.com
Thu Apr 1 19:30:13 UTC 2004
On 4/1/2004 1:16 PM Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine noted that:
> The position that the 2002 WLS determination was controlling is one of
> the possible rationals any member of the board could offer, but it does
> have some profound drawbacks:
> o changes in material facts have no relevancy to the BoD,
> o the RC position was not relevant in 2002, nor in 2004.
>
> These each have corollaries:
> o other issues that may arise as "pending" from time to time,
> may be decided by an appeal to a factually unrelated prior
> determination by the BoD. Material facts are not relevant.
> o Issues, not Constituencies, define controlling actors. VGRS
> is relevant, registrars are not, on the issue of WLS.
Your analysis is flawed - it depends on your incorrect (revisionist?)
view of what happened in 2002. Those that were there or took the time
to review the transcripts will note that the registrar view was taken
into account and written into policy even though registrar demands
were not 100% met. Its called a compromise Eric and its this redeeming
feature of the process that makes your statement pertaining to
litigation particularly odious.
--
-rwr
"Don't be too timid and squeamish about your actions.
All life is an experiment.
The more experiments you make the better."
- Ralph Waldo Emerson
Got Blog? http://www.blogware.com
My Blogware: http://www.byte.org
More information about the registrars
mailing list