This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net/
[anti-abuse-wg] Hijack Factory: AS201640 / AS200002
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Hijack Factory: AS201640 / AS200002
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Hijack Factory: AS201640 / AS200002
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Ronald F. Guilmette
rfg at tristatelogic.com
Sat Nov 8 21:11:48 CET 2014
In message <20141108005303.GD58817 at cilantro.c4inet.net>, Sascha Luck <lists-ripe at c4inet.net> wrote: >On Sat, Nov 08, 2014 at 12:03:57AM +0000, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >>But I doubt you or anyone else can ask to stop any proposal at all being >>placed on the agenda. Whether or not it gets consensus is a different next > >Just. Try. Me. This goes to the full forum or it goes nowhere. "This" what? Other than my own rather informal suggestion that contract terms and expectation could be made more plain, I don't recall having seen anything specific put forward here would might even vaguely be called an actual "proposal". So I'm mystified about what it is that you are, I gather, opposed to. Regards, rfg
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Hijack Factory: AS201640 / AS200002
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Hijack Factory: AS201640 / AS200002
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]