Although not exactly identical, AEWG had a brief spate of trying to get
a legal opinion out of the attorney general. It was a profoundly negative
process (from memory)

I think this time round, the goal is different: DOCA are motivated (or need to
be) and the letter is presumably aimed at making them understand what kind
of legislative protection is needed to ensure this process doesn't freeze in
FUD.

I'm still confused about which model is being proposed: Does the DNS become
self-defining under some protective law, or does the DNS become protected
by passing the issue to a higher authority (the law courts/arbitration) and
accepting the outcome, and because of THAT it gets protection under law, or
what?

Is the letter just defining a problem space or proposing a fix?

-George