It would be great if the combatants can move the theatre of warfare operations to their personal mailboxes.
Best, -M< > On Jun 10, 2015, at 10:46 AM, Silvia Hagen <[email protected]> wrote: > > This thread is like a great piece of comedy, thanks for entertainment > > Silvia > > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > Von: address-policy-wg [mailto:[email protected]] Im Auftrag > von Elvis Daniel Velea > Gesendet: Mittwoch, 10. Juni 2015 16:16 > An: [email protected] > Betreff: Re: [address-policy-wg] Personal attacks - please stop (i ask for > the 3rd time) > > Hi Ciprian, > >> so not that the policy is useless but it's proposal was a mistake. > > Calling my proposal a mistake is very rude from you and I already asked you > to stop being rude, before you started the thread below. > > Even though I already responded to a message you have sent yesterday telling > you that it's not nice what you are doing, you have continued to make false > accusations and wrongfully interpret what others have said. > Curious though, all the wrong interpretations were just to start attacks > against me... > > On 10/06/15 14:39, Ciprian Nica wrote: >> Hi, > [...] >>> Please provide evidence for following claim, otherwise you are just >>> making accusation without any support evidence. >>> >>> "He approved your request for hudreds of thousands of IPs, even >>> approved this last-second allocation. " >>> >>> And the reality is, Elvis has never on the position to make final >>> decision about our allocation. >> You told us that. I can't know what happened during that allocations. >> I only was refering to what you told us, that Elvis was the one that >> approved your allocations. Maybe you know what happens behind the >> scene but that should also bring some questions. > You, intentionally, misunderstood what Lu said and used your wrong > assumptions to start an attack against me. I was under the impression that > you are better than this but it seems you are not better than all the others > that have been attacking me over this policy proposal because their > 'business' was affected. I wonder what kind of business you have if you > publicly attack persons and companies relying on your own false assumptions. > > > What Lu said was that during the evaluation of his requests, he was unhappy > that I was very strict. He, as well as other RIPE NCC Members may have seen > me as a very strict person when I was working at the RIPE NCC. That was only > because I always thrive to be very good at my job and I have always verified > (maybe too much) in depth all the documentation received from LIRs. Just as > you have received the /28 IPv6 allocation (for your extremely large IPv6 > deployment) some LIRs may have have received large IPv4 allocations when > these were justified. > If you are complaining that your request got reduced from /13 to a /14, you > should have complained at that time, you should have used all the tools you > had if you think at that time the IPRAs were wrong - including the last > option, request the arbiters to evaluate your request. You can not come back > 3-4 years later to say, I could have received more if you would have been > less strict (and assume that we have been less strict others), especially > because you have no idea how strict the NCC IPRAs have been with Lu. > > Ciprian, if you really wanted to contribute to this proposal, you were at the > RIPE Meetings where this issue was discussed - however, you decided that the > AP-WG is not worth of your effort and you did not voice any opinion. > Instead, you waited until the last day to start an attack against me (the > proposer) and against some others that you feel 'received more IPs from the > RIPE NCC than you' before the run-out in 2012. > > [...] >>> Again, you are making false statement without any evidence, in >>> reality, I have never done any business with Elvis now and past. >> I don't know anything about any relation that might be between you and >> Elvis. You pointed him out as the one giving you the IPs (approving >> the requests). > > Lu never pointed out that I 'gave' him the IPs. He actually said that found > me to be 'unfriendly' - while actually I was just strict, just as with all > the other requests I evaluated in the 6 years spent at the NCC. > > and before that you said: > >> It is very interesting to find out that the IPs were allocated to you by the >> same person that has initiated this proposal. > > only to then say: > >> Yes, a few years ago he approved your allocations and now he is helping you >> sell the IPs. >> Obviously he only dreams about world peace and there is no conflict of >> interests here. > > You know, and have been aware of this information for years, that one single > IPRA could not approve /16 or larger allocations. However, you started to > attack me implying that I have helped Lu receive the allocations and that > then I tried to help him sell them. Plus, you know (and Andrea Cima also > reminded you in case you had forgotten) that no single IPRA could approve a > /15 or larger allocation without a second IPRA's evaluation and management > and senior management approval. > > I really do not know what happened to you, Ciprian. But I would advise you to > take a step or two back and look at all the things you have wrongfully > interpreted from others' mails. You can contact me directly or Andrea Cima > (RS Manager) if you have any questions about my activity at the RIPE NCC and > stop talking about conflict of interests or all kind of conspiracy theories > where there is none. > > I await your apology for all the badmouthing over the past two days. > Again, this was totally unexpected from you. >> >> Ciprian >> > /elvis >
