On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 05:21:29PM -0700, kris foster wrote:
>
> On Oct 27, 2010, at 4:41 PM, Joe Abley wrote:
>
> > [snip]
> > This document ought to contain the bare minimum number of words
> > required to specify accurately what the situation is. It should not
> > have extra clauses that people shouldn't worry about because they
> > don't really mean anything. If the clause isn't pertinent, scratch
> > it out.
IMO this is the most salient commentary.
> It's necessary to define membership to avoid many disasters (I
> am not aware of a legal requirement, IANAL).
Paying the fee isn't definition enough?
--
RSUC / GweepNet / Spunk / FnB / Usenix / SAGE
_______________________________________________
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
