Re: [wg-b] Final Report

["John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D." <john@johnberryhill.com>]

> READ THE REPORT PEOPLE.

Be mindful of the fact that while you know what you mean when you write
something, the ambiguities are only going to be evident to other people.
Shouting does not resolve the ambiguity.

Read these two sentences you wrote, person:

"The current Sunrise proposal being advanced by the Intellectual Property
Constituency (IPC) and a significant portion of the Registrar Constituency
does not require the creation of such a list. This position appears to
coincide with the Non-Commercial Constituency that has vehemently opposed the
creation of such a list. "

The second sentence begins with "This position", which can easily be
understood to mean the sunrise proposal itself, which is the subject of the
preceding sentence.  Is there some _other_ position mentioned in the logical
antecedent to the "This"?

No, the only "position" mentioned prior to "this position" is the sunrise
proposal - "does not require the creation of such a list" is not a
"position".

Moreover, the second sentence makes little sense on its own anyway, since it
says that a "position coincide[s] with the Non-Commercial Constituency".  How
does a "position" coincide with a group of people?

> NO WHERE IN THE REPORT DID I SAY THE NCDNHC SUPPORTS THE SUNRISE.
>
> UGH!

Take those two sentences and show them to someone who doesn't know anything
about the discussions in this group, and ask them if they believe, based on
those sentences, that the NCDNHC supports the sunrise.

I hope Kathy forgives my incivility at pointing out the ambiguity in what you
wrote, but the most direct reading of it gives the impression that the NCDNHC
supports the sunrise.

Resolving drafting errors is one reason why it is common in some parts of
civil discourse to circulate a draft for comment prior to submitting it.

Double-Ugh.