Kerim Aydin wrote: >means this distribution (but not prior ones, where there was no >such disagreement in evidence!) was invald.
Curious argument. I never read "sufficient to enable ..." that way before. It would mean that the null description, as has previously been used, would be sufficient if publicly accepted as sufficient, even if it is judged that the R107(b) notice must be explicit. I don't agree with your adoption of the R991 criterion, at least as sole criterion for determining public agreement. You can read R991 such that submission of a CFJ (even if the CFJ is later dismissed or refused) proves a lack of public agreement, but I think lack of public agreement can be determined in other ways also. -zefram
