[address-policy-wg] IPv4 Maintenance Policy

On 24 Apr 2012, at 14:48, Milton L Mueller wrote:

> Gert:
> Let me get you corrected on the facts. You seem to have lost track  
> of them and are confusing your animosity toward certain ideas/people  
> with off-topic discussion.
>
> My goal is to encourage a more robust and substantive discussion of  
> the reasons why RIPE (or any other RIR) finds it necessary to  
> sacrifice registry accuracy in order to pressure legacy holders into  
> contracts.

Milton, what you've just stated is an opinion, not fact. Andrea has  
already explained why much of the ERX space that was thrown over the  
wall to the NCC is tagged as "EU". Perhaps you didn't see this before  
you sent your email.

In any case, a childish game of "oh yes it is, oh no it's not" or an  
existential debate over whether your opinion (or mine) is fact or not  
is unhelpful and inappropriate for this list. So if you want to carry  
on with that futile discussion, please do so somewhere else.

Meanwhile, you could also improve the signal to noise ratio by  
actually discussing address policy or even submitting a proposal to  
this list. So instead of claiming that the NCC or RIRs in general are  
behaving in ways that are anti-competitive (in your opinion) please  
put forward proposals which address these issues or at least clearly  
identify the perceived problem/issue. Suggest solutions. If you can  
submit a constructive proposal that's technically sound, it will be  
warmly welcomed.

> There is nothing in the messages under this heading about a "global  
> policy forum."

This is grossly misleading and you know that. You have been posting on  
this list (admittedly in a different thread) about your IGF workshop  
and stating there will be a global policy proposal. I presume you mean  
this IGF workshop will or could turn into that forum.