This is confusing. This discussion on the SSR-RT is supposed to happen on the technical issues list, not the NA one.

On list_A, someone is arguing that the ALAC position on issue_A should be that applicants with less than a million {euros or dollars} is play money are a nuisance or threaten to cause the failure of the Internet or some other amazing effect of having less than a million {euros or dollars} to play ICANN roulette. On list_B, others are arguing that the ALAC position on issue_B should be that all applicants have to attempt to acquire the same scarce resources en mass, simultaneously, as if that policy has no cost consequences to applicants forced to acquire those same scarce resources, which happens to be held in surplus by legacy operators. Now, without attempting to argue the merits of issue_B on list_A, or the merits of issue_A on list_B, I have pointed out that a consistent position on cost to applicants is unlikely if the conclusions of list_A and list_B are contradictory. We could have ALAC recommends inflicting wicked high and purposeless costs on all applicants through a comment on the SSR-RT issues. We could have ALAC recommends avoiding inflicting wicked high and purposeless costs on all applicants through a comment on the SSR-RT issues. We could have NARALO recommends jacking up the prices on all scarce goods and services through mass synchronous demand. We could have NARALO recommends not jacking up the prices on all scarce goods and services and avoiding mass synchronous demand. Eric