[address-policy-wg] A failure to communicate

Hi,

On Wed, Jul 01, 2015 at 11:00:19AM +0100, Jim Reid wrote:
> On 1 Jul 2015, at 10:39, Vladimir Andreev <vladimir at quick-soft.net> wrote:
> 
> > And I already spoke that important aspects were not considered!
> 
> Please state calmly and clearly what important aspects were not considered. ie
> 
> On <date> I said <whatever> and the WG said <whatever2>. IMO the issues I raised in <whatever> were not considered because <whatever2>. Here's the proof: <whatever3>. IMO the consensus determination of the WG co-chairs is therefore flawed because <whatever4>.

And please take into account the summary Sander has posted at the end
of the discussion phase.  Especially for the objections (where it was
possible to understand the point made, not in all cases that succeeded)
Sander has written a detailed answer why he thinks that this is not
sufficient to hold up the proposal.

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/20150701/b5992691/attachment.sig>