<div dir="ltr"><div>Dear All</div><div>I am sorry I am not comfortable with" a minority disagree " because I I do not know that the minoirity means </div><div>Plks come back to the practice of all similar cases </div><div>Either at minimum 2/3 or 4/5</div><div>I can not agree in any way to such a unqualified and quantified term of minority without explain and describing that by a clear cut criteria.</div><div>If people wants to discuss the entire time between 100, 17,30 ,I am ready to do that.</div><div>Plks kindly be logical</div><div>I DO NOT AGREE WITH ANY THING LESS THAN 2/3 AS MINIMUM</div><div>Regards</div><div>KAVOUSS</div><div><br></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">2014-09-05 18:19 GMT+02:00 Jari Arkko <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:jari.arkko@piuha.net" target="_blank">jari.arkko@piuha.net</a>></span>:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">I think the dedicated voting thresholds make the process too rigid and formal. I think the explanation of making an attempt to reach consensus or at the very least having only a minority disagree is sufficient. At the end of the day, rather than pure numbers the actual situation has to be taken into account and a decision has to be made.<br>
<br>
My meta comment is also that we’re spending a lot of time in designing the process for the controversial situations, when it is quite obvious that if we fail to reach broad consensus on the proposal the NTIA will in any case observe that their requirements have not been fulfilled.<br>
<br>
(I do believe we will likely get _some_ controversy no matter how perfect the solution will be. But it is a different thing to have a couple of extreme opinions vs. significant parts of the communities having a problem.)<br>
<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br>
Jari<br>
<br>
</font></span></blockquote></div><br></div>