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@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf