On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 7:07 PM, Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I first read the clause in question as Pete Resnick explained it in previous messages. I support retaining it.
On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 4:57 PM, Michael StJohns <mstjohns@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I’m not trying to argue that the text cannot be improved, but I wanted to let you know that the team did not take all input without questions asked :-)
[...] If its also (or only) a "legal" issue, we direct the affected participants to engage elsewhere and keep our mitts out of that part of it. [...]
I oppose adoption of that policy. I can't see how that would amount to anything more than a useless parody of a real process, which is worse than having none at all.