On Fri, 28 Jan 2005, Scott W Brim wrote:
On Fri, Jan 28, 2005 03:02:00PM +0100, Harald Tveit Alvestrand
allegedly wrote:
The request for review is addressed to the IAOC chair and should
include a description of the decision or action to be reviewed,
an explanation of how the decision or action violates the BCPs or
violates -> is presumed to violate
The text is correct as is. "Presume" is to "assume before". Indeed,
perhaps the decision under review may be presumed not to violate before
the review concludes otherwise.
The explanation to be given to the review is about how and why the
decision under review should be found to violate something. It would be
incorrect to say "...an explanation of how the decision or action is
presumed to violate the BCPs..."
In court, the defendant is presumed innocent. That is, they are assumed
before a decision to be innocent. The prosecution presents an explanation
of why they should be found guilty, not why they are presumed guilty.
Indeed, they should not be presumed guilty, and no one should need to
explain why that happened, except perhaps after someone's civil right to
presumption of innocence was violated.
--
Av8 Internet Prepared to pay a premium for better service?
www.av8.net faster, more reliable, better service
617 344 9000
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf