[address-policy-wg] Personal attacks - please stop (i ask for the 3rd time)

It would be great if the combatants can move the theatre of warfare operations to their personal mailboxes.

Best,

-M<



> On Jun 10, 2015, at 10:46 AM, Silvia Hagen <silvia.hagen at sunny.ch> wrote:
> 
> This thread is like a great piece of comedy, thanks for entertainment
> 
> Silvia
> 
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces at ripe.net] Im Auftrag von Elvis Daniel Velea
> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 10. Juni 2015 16:16
> An: address-policy-wg at ripe.net
> Betreff: Re: [address-policy-wg] Personal attacks - please stop (i ask for the 3rd time)
> 
> Hi Ciprian,
> 
>> so not that the policy is useless but it's proposal was a mistake.
> 
> Calling my proposal a mistake is very rude from you and I already asked you to stop being rude, before you started the thread below.
> 
> Even though I already responded to a message you have sent yesterday telling you that it's not nice what you are doing, you have continued to make false accusations and wrongfully interpret what others have said. 
> Curious though, all the wrong interpretations were just to start attacks against me...
> 
> On 10/06/15 14:39, Ciprian Nica wrote:
>> Hi,
> [...]
>>> Please provide evidence for following claim, otherwise you are just 
>>> making accusation without any support evidence.
>>> 
>>> "He approved your request for hudreds of thousands of IPs, even 
>>> approved this last-second allocation. "
>>> 
>>> And the reality is, Elvis has never on the position to make final 
>>> decision about our allocation.
>> You told us that. I can't know what happened during that allocations. 
>> I only was refering to what you told us, that Elvis was the one that 
>> approved your allocations. Maybe you know what happens behind the 
>> scene but that should also bring some questions.
> You, intentionally, misunderstood what Lu said and used your wrong assumptions to start an attack against me. I was under the impression that you are better than this but it seems you are not better than all the others that have been attacking me over this policy proposal because their 'business' was affected. I wonder what kind of business you have if you publicly attack persons and companies relying on your own false assumptions.
> 
> 
> What Lu said was that during the evaluation of his requests, he was unhappy that I was very strict. He, as well as other RIPE NCC Members may have seen me as a very strict person when I was working at the RIPE NCC. That was only because I always thrive to be very good at my job and I have always verified (maybe too much) in depth all the documentation received from LIRs. Just as you have received the /28 IPv6 allocation (for your extremely large IPv6 deployment) some LIRs may have have received large IPv4 allocations when these were justified.
> If you are complaining that your request got reduced from /13 to a /14, you should have complained at that time, you should have used all the tools you had if you think at that time the IPRAs were wrong - including the last option, request the arbiters to evaluate your request. You can not come back 3-4 years later to say, I could have received more if you would have been less strict (and assume that we have been less strict others), especially because you have no idea how strict the NCC IPRAs have been with Lu.
> 
> Ciprian, if you really wanted to contribute to this proposal, you were at the RIPE Meetings where this issue was discussed - however, you decided that the AP-WG is not worth of your effort and you did not voice any opinion.
> Instead, you waited until the last day to start an attack against me (the proposer) and against some others that you feel 'received more IPs from the RIPE NCC than you' before the run-out in 2012.
> 
> [...]
>>> Again, you are making false statement without any evidence, in 
>>> reality, I have never done any business with Elvis now and past.
>> I don't know anything about any relation that might be between you and 
>> Elvis. You pointed him out as the one giving you the IPs (approving 
>> the requests).
> 
> Lu never pointed out that I 'gave' him the IPs. He actually said that found me to be 'unfriendly' - while actually I was just strict, just as with all the other requests I evaluated in the 6 years spent at the NCC.
> 
> and before that you said:
> 
>> It is very interesting to find out that the IPs were allocated to you by the same person that has initiated this proposal.
> 
> only to then say:
> 
>> Yes, a few years ago he approved your allocations and now he is helping you sell the IPs.
>> Obviously he only dreams about world peace and there is no conflict of interests here.
> 
> You know, and have been aware of this information for years, that one single IPRA could not approve /16 or larger allocations. However, you started to attack me implying that I have helped Lu receive the allocations and that then I tried to help him sell them.  Plus, you know (and Andrea Cima also reminded you in case you had forgotten) that no single IPRA could approve a /15 or larger allocation without a second IPRA's evaluation and management and senior management approval.
> 
> I really do not know what happened to you, Ciprian. But I would advise you to take a step or two back and look at all the things you have wrongfully interpreted from others' mails. You can contact me directly or Andrea Cima (RS Manager) if you have any questions about my activity at the RIPE NCC and stop talking about conflict of interests or all kind of conspiracy theories where there is none.
> 
> I await your apology for all the badmouthing over the past two days. 
> Again, this was totally unexpected from you.
>> 
>> Ciprian
>> 
> /elvis
>