Yes. i believe that this version emphasizes the important points and offers a "compromise" by suggesting that the board can proceed with TLDs, etc. but limit the potential damage to non-commercial parties with the more rapid review and delay of competiting constituencies. while it expressly claims it doesn't ask the board to recind it's decision, it certainly demands a substantial revision. i liked the flow of Mary's draft and the exposition that filled in un-informed board members of how we reached this point in time, but recognize that the current draft reads quicker, and that if the direct meeting with the board comes about, then the opportunity to put those points will fall on those who present out views at the meeting, so hope that the board (as a whole - as requested) chooses to listen at the upcomming meeting in Seoul and acts favorable on the other two points (whether they are called repeals or modifications or other descriptive terms). -ron