Good idea! Let's also use a generic name 'Spammer' for contributors to this
list.
--
IDGARA | Alex de Joode | a...@idgara.nl | +31651108221
On Thu, 12-11-2020 13h 52min, PP wrote:
>
Is it possible to move a motion to rename this working group from Anti
> Abuse WG to "The promotion of
Is it possible to move a motion to rename this working group from Anti
Abuse WG to "The promotion of abuse working group"?
Because this entire working group is a farce.
On 12/11/2020 11:31 pm, Angela Dall'Ara wrote:
Dear Jordi,
The WGCC task, as defined in Section 4 of the PDP, is it to
Dear Jordi,
The WGCC task, as defined in Section 4 of the PDP, is it to determine
“whether to uphold or reject appeals”.
In addition to that, in this first occurrence of an appeal being
submitted, they chose to provide an extended explanation to you and the
community,
which is strictly
On Mon 26/Oct/2020 15:33:21 +0100 Alex de Joode wrote:
Jordi et al,
I have to comment RIPE NCC and WGCC (and those that recused themselves). The
appeals process was used, the outcome reaffirmed the original decision.
It's clear the proposal was fatally flawed.
May I suggest we do not waist
Jordi et al,
I have to comment RIPE NCC and WGCC (and those that recused themselves). The
appeals process was used, the outcome reaffirmed the original decision.
It's clear the proposal was fatally flawed.
May I suggest we do not waist extra effort on this but accept the outcome and
instead
Hi Jordi,
The appeal was published on the RIPE NCC web page on the 13th of October.
The Policy Development Process in RIPE states:
"The appeal will also be published by the RIPE NCC at appropriate locations on
the RIPE web site.”
The RIPE NCC does not currently have an appeals policy web page
Hi Petrit,
I can see it *now* published, however, *last week* (on 20th according to my
browser history), I was working in another policy proposal and looking at this
web page, and the text related to the appeal was not there.
Could you confirm when it was published and announced?
I fully
Hello Jordi,
I would just like to comment on your first point.
The appeal was published on the RIPE NCC website on the following links:
https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2019-04
https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/archived-policy-proposals/archive-policy-proposals/
We
There is also another point that I will like to rise and I just noticed, and
this is very relevant not just because this appeal, but because the appeal
process itself.
3 co-chairs have recused themselves. Is that meaning that all the discussion
has been done in a different mailing list apart
Hi Mirjam,
See my responses below, in-line as many clarifications are clearly required,
not just because this appeal, but because there is a misjudgment of the PDP
itself.
Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
El 26/10/20 9:07, "Mirjam Kuehne" escribió:
Dear Jordi,
Regarding the appeal
Dear Jordi,
Regarding the appeal you submitted on 5 October to the RIPE Anti-Abuse
Working Group mailing list, I would like to inform you about the
decision of the RIPE Working Group Chairs Collective (according to the
procedure as defined in ripe-710).
The WG Chairs Collective (WGCC) decided
Hi all,
This appeal (attached in PDF) follows the process outlined by ripe-710 (RIPE
PDP).
Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
**
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company
This electronic message
12 matches
Mail list logo
