[RAA-WG] Comments on the comments

[John L]

> On the should/could etc, most of what we propose is under the form of a
> request to ICANN, rather than of detailed contractual language, and I
> found it more courteous to say that "ICANN should..." rather than "ICANN
> must...". Of course contractual languages should (must) say "must"...
> isn't that clear enough?

Several of these issues are areas where ICANN already has contract 
language that they have never used, most notably registry escrow.  I'd 
like to use languge that makes it clear that we know that ICANN already 
could (and probably should) be acting.

Regards,
John Levine, johnl at iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://www.johnlevine.com, ex-Mayor
"More Wiener schnitzel, please", said Tom, revealingly.