At Fri, 25 Apr 2014 10:15:02 +0100, Nigel Titley wrote:
Option 2.4, according to the proposal, is for those legacy holders who meet the criteria to engage with a sponsoring LIR "but cannot find a Sponsoring LIR with which a mutually satisfactory contract of the kind mentioned in that section". The board sees this option as being for legacy holders who are *unable* to find a sponsoring LIR rather than those who *do not want* to find a sponsoring LIR.
I've noticed two things here. The more significant one is that we'll need to establish a common understanding of just what the distinction should be between *unable* and *do not want*. The other is that the passage cited is grammatically incomplete, as it is also in the on-line copy of ripe-605. This is likely my responsibility as editor of the proposal. I offer my apologies and will arrange to have it corrected. Best regards, Niall