David W. Hankins wrote:

> The definitions in Olafur's draft for qualified supporters
> shouldn't be considered exclusionary.

That's precisely how I understand them, and it's not hard to
guess which cases this tries to address.  It's also not hard
to guess which _unrelated_ 3.5 appeals I have in mind.

IIRC Brian mentioned that they need an open and transparent
dispute resolution process for the legal insurance.  And if
that's more expensive with the "paying-member-model" it's
even counterproductive.

> Perhaps Olafur might even be convinced to produce text in
> his draft that encourages individuals to provide their
> support in proxy, or to allow IAB/IESG members to waive.

Perhaps he could be also convinced to trash his draft.  I've
trashed an "3710-obsolete" draft (before publication - luck).

Frank, <http://purl.net/xyzzy/home/test/senderid-appeal.htm>



_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Reply via email to