[address-policy-wg] An interesting policy question

Hi

On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 9:16 PM, Nick Hilliard <nick at inex.ie> wrote:

> On 03/12/2015 19:56, Lu Heng wrote:
> > I am asking a very specific question to an very specific service example
> > here, the only way to be more specific would be naming people.
>
> you're asking a vague question with very few details and expecting a very
> specific answer.
>

I've tried to provide more details, and tried my best to ask the specific
question, if there is an understanding/language issue, I apologize,  but
only pointing at me saying I am asking a vague question without future
exploring the detail in which I will try my best to explain, does not help
any thing really.

If a new guy came to ask an dum question, I think the best way is try to
understand what he really trying to ask and help to answer it. but not" you
are vague we don't understand go away). if that is the case, it really
would take genius to join this community because all new guy's question
will be dum at some point.


>
> > the only way to be more specific would be naming people.
>
> which makes this sound like your email is the subject of an open issue with
> the RIPE NCC.
>
> If this is the case, it would probably be inappropriate to discuss the
> matter on AP-WG because this mailing list doesn't have the full facts
> available, nor does it have any mandate to discuss issues which are being
> handled by the RIPE NCC.  In other words, this is the RIPE NCC's business.
>
> If you feel that there is a problem with how the RIPE NCC is handling an
> case, there is a Conflict Arbitration Procedure which allows an independent
> Arbiters Panel to review any decision that the RIPE NCC has made.
>

Simply not true here.

>
> Nick
>



-- 
--
Kind regards.
Lu
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20151203/6c27de41/attachment.html>