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(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf