On Nov 2, 2007, at 02:32, Bill Sommerfeld wrote: > On Thu, 2007-11-01 at 19:16 -0700, Keith M Wesolowski wrote: >> 8.6 permits the OGB to take any of 4 actions in this case: > ... >> 4. Provide guidance to the Group. > > This seems like the best option. If things are as Simon claims and > "Sun" had nothing to do with the choice of name, then the OGB ought to > be able to direct the Group to change the name of the distribution.
Don't get me wrong here. My objection is to referring to "Sun" as the culprit in the OGB's motion. Current Sun fiduciaries (i.e. people outside the jursidiction of the OGB) may prove to be the ultimate cause (I honestly don't know, yet). I was just saying that Keith ought not cite "Sun" in his draft motion since prima facie "Sun" was not part of the incident the OGB wishes to censure. And FWIW I agree with you :-) S.
