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@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf