[address-policy-wg] 2014-07, was [Re: 2014-08 New Policy Proposal (Language Clarification in "Contractual Requirements for Provider Independent Resource Holders in the RIPE NCC Service Region")]

Hi,

On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 04:31:37PM +0200, Peter Koch wrote:
> > Uh, are you sure the comments weren't intended for 2014-11?  At least one
> > of us is thoroughly confused here, possibly both.
> 
> you aren't, I was and that twice, which is why I decided, after noting it,
> to move slowly, stick to handrails all day and probably throttle postings a bit.
> Still I think I said what I meant and still mean w.r.t. policies affecting
> the NCC.

After you deconfuse yourself, please send the comments in the thread relating
to that proposal, with the subject identifying the particular proposal they
apply to.

Otherwise it will be absolutely impossible for Sander and me later on to
sort out which comment was sent to proposal X but really applies to Y or Z
(and FTR, I'll formally ignore this particular subthread, since it was
officially not intended for 2014-07 or 2014-08).

thanks,

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
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 811 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20141024/159c0f91/attachment.sig>