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