[address-policy-wg] Complaint and future of the APWG.

Hi Gert, and Chair, everyone here:

This Email is my thought on what happened in past years in the APWG.

First of all, I support turn on moderation on this list.

secondly, I do feel there are two different kind of treatment here from one
of the Chair.

While my company information and false accusation getting posted in the
list, all I heard from that Chair was:

*"One is "people managed to get large chunks of address space before the*





*last-/8 policy kicked in, and got rich selling them" (Jump SRL is
anotherexample of this).  There is not really anything we in address
policycan do about this retroactively - and in any case, this is
somethingthat will certainly not happen again, as there are no big chunks
to bereceived anymore (but of course the NCC will look into it if
fraudhappened, and the tax authorities might also be interested...)"*

He does not stop the action and even named another company in the community
in his reply.

While yesterday someone making false accusation about me and my company
yesterday, he even replied:









*"Actually I can't see a personal attack here.  I do see provable facts
puton the table, which might reflect in a way that you might not like, but
thatis the usual problem with transparency.  All the data about, for
example,37.222.0.0/15 <http://37.222.0.0/15> is available in the RIPE DB
"--show-version <x>" output.While I do consider this only partially
relevant to the policy proposalunder discussion, it *is* giving a
background on what is happening orhas happened outside the last /8 range,
and some of these transfers indeedmake the "30x /22 fast-transferred" issue
look fairly marginal."*

While I fail to understand what my company and my business has to do with
RIPE policy discussion, and why my company has even related to this policy
proposal under discussion(close loop for last /8), I was tried to explain
to him:


*"Put up a fact without statement is fine with me, putting up our IP range
from the past is some how personal in my opinion, accusing me and my
company "Abuser" is a statement in the public space without solicit
evidence in which I first did not see the relevance to policy discussion,
secondly it is unlawful as well.*

*Here are two fundamental problem to your wording:*

*1. The policy proposal under discussion is about protect the original
intent of the last /8, in which the IP mentioned before has nothing to do
with.*

*2. Because it was legal to kill anyone on the street 1000 years ago does
not justify for preventing pass a law today to prevent future killing,  in
another words, whatever happened in the past should has no relevance to
this policy.*

*Sure, any one can doubt my business and my motive as well, but both my
business and my motive has nothing to do with 2015-1"to close loop of the
/8". And such doubt is not for PWAG to discuss anyway. It is policy
discussion list, even in the worst case, you think I do not follow the
policy, you should report to RIPE NCC but not putting unverified accusation
in the policy mailing list.*

*Making me a bad guy does not justify the current bad behaviour.*

*And I am not making worse for myself, I stay silence for the past years
does not mean I did not see the list, I just followed advice by community
member like Rob and everybody i talked in the Ripe meeting, I have been
told let it go and not flight for it, and It also does not mean I will take
on any accusation on me on a public space that I do care with. And I do
believe you totally understand, what I do in my business is a personal
issue, and I am very open to discuss with you in a private space, but not
in the policy mailing list. To best of my knowledge, you have never
approached me to talk with me or even ask me anything, without doing that
and making statement in the public list is not very ethnic I believe."*

>From my best impression of his personal opinion(feel free to correct me if
I am wrong),he does not like anyone sell their IPs, in which is perfectly
fine with me, everyone can have things they like or dislike, however,
acting as chair of APWG, I believe integrity should be keep at highest
level therefore personal emotion should not get involved.

I was 19 when I had my first RIPE meeting, I did not miss a single meeting
since then, Gert and Sander and many other community members helped me a
lot in the process to understand the fundamental part of the internet, I do
appreciate for that, and my business has grow over years, and I always try
to be a good community member and contributing to the community as much as
I can, to be clear, everything I have ever posted in the APWG was for the
general good of the community and not for my personal gain.

"I don't like this guy so I am not going to protect his personal
information and people can feel free to make false accusation on him as
much as they want", this is the impression I had for past few month from
this chair, while I called him politely ask him give me 2 mins to  explain
my business to him since he give me impression that he might believe I am
an "absuer" (apologise if he does not think that way) and only request him
to remain confidential, he refused to talk to me, and i hand up the call
and here only way to left to protect future of my company and my name in
attached, I have to do this call, I am making an complaint about this chair
on his integrity of moderate this list.

Because this is the complaint about the APWG chair, RIPE chair is CCed in
the list.

I do not expect anything from this complaint other than good discussion
about policy in the future in this list, no more personal attach, no more
personal information leaked, no more false accusation on things not related
to the policy.

End of the day, it is policy will affect millions of internet users in
Europe, middle East, Russian, we really should stop childish acting like
who did what so why cannot I do.

Be professional.

With regards.

Lu




On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 10:33 AM, Gert Doering <gert at space.net> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 11:24:27AM +0300, Elvis Daniel Velea wrote:
> > PS: Gert, I know I promised yesterday I will no longer reply back to
> > attacks, but I had to reply to this one and ask Ciprian (one more time)
> > to stop. Can you also do something about it?
>
> As a matter of last resort, we might turn on moderation for the APWG list.
>
> I'm not really happy to even consider that, as it would hurt transparency
> and the flow of discussion ("if neither chair is around, things come to a
> stop", and "what are the criteria to block or pass a mail?  will the chairs
> use this to influence the outcome of a discussion?") - but if this is not
> stopping RIGHT NOW, we'll have to.
>
> 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/20150611/07bd2090/attachment.html>