[acm-tf] Determining a sanction is the primary issue

Morning (at least in this time zone),

Let me be more clear than I was yesterday, I do not see this discussion 
as anywhere even close to the scope of the TF, regardless of its merits 
or otherwise, so I think it's best that we let it lie at this point.

Thanks,

Brian.

On 04/05/2011 02:15, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
> It depends - at least some activists (and blocklists) have tried to
> use RIPE processes properly.
>
> And on the other hand there are some entitites that follow the RIPE
> processes in letter though definitely not in spirit, to get themselves
> lots of /15s.
>
> Can we please not go down this blame game path?
>
> On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 4:09 AM, Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet
> <Woeber at cc.univie.ac.at>  wrote:
>>
>> I may add here, that some of those self-appointed vigilantes have themselves
>> tried already to use mechanisms to "force" other entities by applying pressure
>> mechanisms that would render them "guilty" in general terms. There is a good
>> reason whay at least one of those organisations has already been taken to court
>> for that, and has been publicly shamed for their activities and "reasoning".
>>
>> The last thing I would like to see is the RIPE NCC becoming one of "those"
>> organisations, too. As bad as some stuff on the Internet is (I am well aware
>> of that fact[1]) the stability and impartiality of the RIPE NCC is by far more
>> important, imho.
>
>
>