Re: [registrars] WLS and the lessons we can retain

["Ross Wm. Rader" <ross@xxxxxxxxxx>]

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