We do. And it is a canon of legal interpretation that language in a
document is not to be read so as to be meaningless.
You are promoting a reading that says that the language is meaningless,
just like you promoted a reading that says the explicit limitations on the
boards powers over SO decisions are also meaningless.
Either the drafter of the language is a legal idiot or that language has
meaning.
Although I do have my opinion about the talents of the author, I don't
think he is an idiot.
That language indicates that individuals have a peer role with
organizations in SO's. It removes the ability of SO's, all SO's to block
individuals. That is its clear and obvious meaning, apparent to all who
read it.
And the "legislative history" of that phrasing further backs that reading
-- the BWG proposed language requiring individual participation in SO's.
Our suggested language was not used but, rather, was answered by the
language in question.
And now that language is gone.
ICANN removed it without real notice, without discussion, without
explaining its reasons. In other words it removed it in a way
that is completely at odds with ICANN letter's statements to Bliley about
process.
--karl--
-
This message was sent via the IDNO-DISCUSS mailing list. To unsubscribe,
send a message containing the line "unsubscribe idno-discuss" to
majordomo@idno.org. For more information, see http://www.idno.org/