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