Hello, I am sorry, I should say that some people definitely misinterpreted my words. And probably not only mines I definitely declared that I still think that no concensus was reached. I am not sure that I want to spend time to fill a formal appeal, however, may be. Thanks for your considerations, Géza <div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 2:35 PM, Immo 'FaUl' Wehrenberg <<a href="mailto:immo.ripe@be.free.de">immo.ripe@be.free.de</a>> wrote: <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class="im">Gert wrote: > Looking at all the messages that have been posted in the discussions > following my e-mails, I categorize your feedback as follows: </div>[...] <div class="im">> - statements of "we do not have consensus" > (Immo Wehrenberg, on the assumption that consensus has to be unanimous > Remco Van Mook) </div>I'm afraid I have to correct you here. I said that I'm not sure wether we have consensous or not and i would follow Gezas opinion on that. Since Geza has not objected that consensous is reached, I assume that we have consensous now. Just a clarification, sorry that I did not make this clear in the first place. Immo </blockquote></div>