Serge,
Serge Droz wrote on 31/07/2026 18:30:
It's not venting. It's stating the facts:
it's taking a swipe at people.
All you write are reasons why we should not change things. Alternatives could be
There are plenty of other proposals or groups of proposals that I've
supported over the years, some controversial, some not so. This isn't
because I don't want online abuse to be dealt with, or that I like
objecting to RIPE policy proposals: it's because the proposals that are
coming out of security-wg / abuse-wg have, in my opinion, really serious
and fundamental problems with them which haven't been addressed by the
proposal authors.
1. Check how the others do and copy it
or
2. Instead of saying X is not workable, you could say It seems X is
no workable, but we could try Y to solve this. But the second part
never comes.
It never comes from the policy proposer either, which is the actual
problem here. Also, I don't have a workable alternative to the reality
that the RIPE NCC doesn't have supranational judicial authority or that
it's subject to the laws of the country where it legally resides.
It's also correct to say that when someone comes up with a RIPE
Community policy proposal, that it needs to be able to withstand
reasonable criticism, and that if the proposer can't withstand that
criticism, then the policy proposal should fail. The proposals aren't
precious. I've had plenty of proposals shot down by other people. So what?
Nick
-----
To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options,
please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/security-wg.ripe.net/
As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the email matching your subscription before you can change your settings.
More details at: https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/
