[ppml] Policy Proposal 2004-3 point of order

[Michael.Dillon at radianz.com]

> In a message written on Tue, Apr 19, 2005 at 03:25:50PM +0100, 
> Michael.Dillon at radianz.com wrote:
> > Here is the chronology that you claim:
> > 
> > RFC 2050 - yes
> > Old Wording - no
> > New Wording - yes
> 
> This is incorrect.  ARIN has said "yes" under the old wording.  The more
> accurate description is:

This is bizarre. You are the second person who is
confused about what I am saying.

> RFC 2050    = yes, and everyone understood that it was a yes.
> Old Wording = yes, but some people were confused, and thought it was a
>               no, like you.

I'm not confused. Read my words again, up above. I was
merely restating the claim made by the first poster in 
order to show him where his confusion may have arisen.

The chronology that I believe is as follows:

RFC 2050 - yes
Old wording - yes (poor phrasing, but no intentions
              to *CHANGE* RFC 2050.)
New wording - yes (fixed the wording to make it clear
              that the policy is and always has been
              the same as RFC 2050)

If anything, I suppose this demonstrates that we have
to be careful how we state things.

--Michael Dillon