[Nanog-futures] New Membership-WG Draft

Joe Provo nanog-fut at rsuc.gweep.net
Thu Oct 28 00:34:25 UTC 2010


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



More information about the Nanog-futures mailing list