[address-policy-wg] 2016-03 New Version and Impact Analysis Published (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)

Totally agree with Radu.

-1 for this policy from me too.

Ciprian

On Wednesday, October 19, 2016, Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN <
ripe-wgs at radu-adrian.feurdean.net> wrote:

> On Wed, Oct 19, 2016, at 10:33, Aleksey Bulgakov wrote:
> > Hi.
> >
> > It is obviously the 99℅ of members want to withdraw this proposal in any
> > versions, but the NCC strongly moves it forward. May be the NCC has own
> > reasons to do it, but why it doesn't notice evident things.
>
> Except that members (RIPE NCC members), unless they voice their concerns
> here, on this list, don't have a word to say on policy development.
>
> As for myself, I still strongly oppose for too many reasons (it would
> take half of a working day to write all them down again).
> As a very quick and incomplete reminder:
>  - "two levels membership" / differentiated services
>  - "RIPE NCC as an investment fund" (or "former Gold distributor")
>  - uncertainty for feasibility of business processes (what exactly is
>  M&A today ? , what will it be tomorrow ?)
>  - stubbornness on arguments/issues that still do not yet apply
>  everywhere or that still have enough space for a middlegroud
>  - ....
>  -
>  https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-
> wg/2016-August/011700.html
>  -
>  https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-
> wg/2016-June/011565.html
>  -
>  https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-
> wg/2016-June/011548.html
> No, I don't think any of my concerns has been addressed.
>
> And last but not least, differentiated treatment of the proposals (ideas
> in general), depending on who is the proposer and how does it fit within
> the ideas of the "establishment".
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20161019/75790863/attachment.html>