<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [registrars] WG: [council] Domain Tasting Design Team Proposed GNSO Council Motion
- To: "'Thomas Keller'" <tom@xxxxxxxx>, <registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [registrars] WG: [council] Domain Tasting Design Team Proposed GNSO Council Motion
- From: "John Berryhill" <john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2008 08:54:59 -0500
- In-reply-to: <00b801c86a41$47f92d30$fa0d11ac@1und1.domain>
- List-id: registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Organization: John Berryhill, Ph.d., Esq.
- References: <00b801c86a41$47f92d30$fa0d11ac@1und1.domain>
- Reply-to: <john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Sender: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Thread-index: AchpOeJzlawT2XKPS4el707wTmNnrQBBgZegAAZlsJA=
Tom,
Since the term "speculative registration" has no operative meaning in
relation to the RAA, the "shall be deemed" language should stay out. It
sounds like the ghost of the RAA "warehousing" clause, which is nearly
universally misunderstood.
If the term "speculative registration" appears in no other consensus policy
or contract, then introducing the term here without definition (other than,
yes, stating it as one), is intended to accomplish what?
What, in life or business, is not "speculative". We all live in the hope
that the sun will rise on us tomorrow. I cannot see a meaningful
distinction between what is "speculative" and what is not.
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|