[address-policy-wg] [members-discuss] other options to ? Reclaiming unused Ipv4 blocks

Hi

I personally believe it is not even fair to discuss policy in member
mailing list--policy is made by and for the community, not only ripe
members.

So anything related to future policy change should stay in APWG.

在 2013年12月17日星期二，Gert Doering 写道：

> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 11:09:09AM +0100, "Mag. Matthias ?ubik" wrote:
> [..]
>
> Please do *not* cross-post between the members-discuss and
> address-policy-wg
> mailing lists.
>
> Charging scheme discussions should stay in members-discuss, as APWG
> has no direct influence on the charging scheme.
>
> Policy change discussions are welcome in the address-policy-wg list, but
> should not cross-post to members-discuss, as that will fragment the
> discussion threads (some replies go to one of the lists, some go to the
> other, noise level goes up).
>
> Gert Doering
>         -- APWG chair
> --
> have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?
>
> SpaceNet AG                        Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard
> Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14          Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
> D-80807 Muenchen                   HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
> Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444           USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
>


-- 
--
Kind regards.
Lu

This transmission is intended solely for the addressee(s) shown above.
It may contain information that is privileged, confidential or
otherwise protected from disclosure. Any review, dissemination or use
of this transmission or its contents by persons other than the
intended addressee(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received
this transmission in error, please notify this office immediately and
e-mail the original at the sender's address above by replying to this
message and including the text of the transmission received.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20131217/d70a88c2/attachment.html>