I believe that everyone on the AIP/ORSC side of the Paris Draft Adoption conclusion stands for the change that Bret proposed and cited below. Is it still on the boards for inclusion? When is the drafting attempt going to be mde to come up with a meld of the two applications? This change belongs in that attempt, as it is a widely agreed aupon change on both sides. BTW, given the time pressures, I think it is absolutely critical to get going ot putting together a proposed meld draft, rather then be standing around gossiping about "maybe some oen should do something"! So, I nominate Bret and AIP to take their best shot and put it out for discussion. Until we have something real proposed to look at and discuss, we can only continue to wander in the Sinai. Cheers...\Stef >From your message Sat, 13 Feb 1999 10:59:12 +1200: } }At 17:43 12/02/99 +0100, Roberto Gaetano wrote: }>Bret, }> }>You wrote: }>> Siegfried Langenbach wrote: }>> }>> >In my view a big diff is the veto-power of one group (registries). }>> >That does not fit at all with my view of equality. }>> }>> How about the modified version of this language that was included in the }>> Joint Appendix forwarded by the AIP and NSI with the AIP cover letter? It }>> removes the "veto-power" aspect of the rule. Does that address the }>> concern? }>> }>It does, indeed. }>(IMHO, at least) }> }>Also, I am confident that a large part of the signatories of the Paris Draft }>are confortable with it, as well as (most of?) the signatories of the }>Washington Draft. }> }Roberto and all, } }I was never happy with that (semi) veto-clause in the first place. Removal }will make me more comfortable with the Paris Draft. } } }Joop Teernstra LL.M. }Democratic Association of Domain Name Owners }http://www.democracy.org.nz }
