Throwing Richard Cox out of a wg vice chair role in an AOB session where lots of regulars from other parts of the ripe meeting just happened to wander in happened too, not too long back, so please don't remind me about ACTA. As for the policy proposal I assume whoever makes it will make it in public and with drafts posted here so you're entirely free not to vote for it. 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 step. <div class="gmail_quote">On Sat, 8 Nov 2014 at 04:54 Sascha Luck <<a href="mailto:lists-ripe@c4inet.net">lists-ripe@c4inet.net</a>> wrote: <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">On Fri, Nov 07, 2014 at 12:34:56PM +0100, Gert Doering wrote: >there (formal policy proposal in anti-abuse?). NO. Please NO. put any such proposals in apwg, where they belong. I cannot be that address policy that affects *every* member is made on a mailing list that few people read (largely due to the noise and regular incoherent ranting). I would consider any "consensus" reached in this way invalid. It's the equivalent of approving ACTA at 2am in the Fisheries Commission session (yup, that happened) I would also note that the only WG whose charter explicitly permits policy-making is address-policy and I think that was the intention. (ergo the above goes for any other "special interest" WG as well. >OTOH, the existing contracts people need to sign *do* contain clauses >that resource holders will abide "all RIPE policies" (or such), so Indeed and penalties for non-compliance exist. rgds, Sascha Luck </blockquote></div>