<html xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=Windows-1252">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
span.EmailStyle19
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style>
</head>
<body lang="EN-IN" link="#0563C1" vlink="#954F72">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US">I am glad to hear that and of course that�s the case. But then I�m getting called out for �encouraging� consensus, to the point where it invites application of Godwin�s law, by crowding the room
with people in support of the proposal, if I call for participation from organisations� abuse teams.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US">I keep getting the sense of a long running old closed club where anything above packet pushing and dns aren�t quite operational and just barely tolerated / mostly ignored for the most part.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US">--srs<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black">From:
</span></b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black">Rob Evans <rhe@nosc.ja.net><br>
<b>Date: </b>Tuesday, 12 May 2020 at 12:21 AM<br>
<b>To: </b>Suresh Ramasubramanian <ops.lists@gmail.com><br>
<b>Cc: </b>Sascha Luck [ml] <aawg@c4inet.net>, anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net <anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net><br>
<b>Subject: </b>Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-04 Discussion Phase (Validation of "abuse-mailbox")<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Hi Suresh,<br>
<br>
> All I am asking is that cobblers stick to their last. People with<br>
> backgrounds in routing and networking are not necessarily the people<br>
> in their organizations that handle abuse issues.<br>
<br>
As I'm sure you're aware, the RIPE working groups are open to all<br>
(regardless of any organisation's membership of the RIPE NCC or not,<br>
or location in the traditional service area of the RIPE NCC), and I<br>
would expect the Anti-Abuse Working Group to have reasonable<br>
representation from those dealing with abuse issues.<br>
<br>
I don't wish to speak for the co-chairs, but if those people aren't<br>
represented I am sure they'd be welcome to take part in the working<br>
group!<br>
<br>
Equally, people working in dealing with abuse issues are welcome to<br>
contribute to discussions on routing, networking, and re-soling shoes.<br>
<br>
Cheers,<br>
Rob<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>