Totally agree with Radu. -1 for this policy from me too.
Ciprian On Wednesday, October 19, 2016, Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN < [email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, Oct 19, 2016, at 10:33, Aleksey Bulgakov wrote: > > Hi. > > > > It is obviously the 99℅ of members want to withdraw this proposal in any > > versions, but the NCC strongly moves it forward. May be the NCC has own > > reasons to do it, but why it doesn't notice evident things. > > Except that members (RIPE NCC members), unless they voice their concerns > here, on this list, don't have a word to say on policy development. > > As for myself, I still strongly oppose for too many reasons (it would > take half of a working day to write all them down again). > As a very quick and incomplete reminder: > - "two levels membership" / differentiated services > - "RIPE NCC as an investment fund" (or "former Gold distributor") > - uncertainty for feasibility of business processes (what exactly is > M&A today ? , what will it be tomorrow ?) > - stubbornness on arguments/issues that still do not yet apply > everywhere or that still have enough space for a middlegroud > - .... > - > https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy- > wg/2016-August/011700.html > - > https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy- > wg/2016-June/011565.html > - > https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy- > wg/2016-June/011548.html > No, I don't think any of my concerns has been addressed. > > And last but not least, differentiated treatment of the proposals (ideas > in general), depending on who is the proposer and how does it fit within > the ideas of the "establishment". > >
