JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via NANOG wrote:
My proposal added the clarification that "majority" is understood as "over 50%".
And the proposal is denied to be unreasonable by Toma and, more
aggressively, by me.
So?
> The staff was already interpreting the policy like that, because
> usually when you say majority, you mean more than half. Do you
> agree on that?
How can you ask such a question. already opposed by Toma and,
more aggressively, by me, to me?
My point is that locality requirement, whether it is 50% or 40%, is
impractical and, with operational practices today, is not and can
not be enforced.
>> The community decided that my proposal to add the explicit "footnote"
Then, the "footnote" might be applicable to *SOME* part of "the
community" but definitely not beyond it.
Masataka Ohta
