|
|
I saw Randy's reply not as rude - he did thank for the input - but as clarifying that this input was just that of any other non-APNIC-member participant. One way to put it is that Sander's view carries no extra weight due to his status at RIPE, compared to mine for example. I am grateful that APNIC considers it possible that comments from outsiders like us could inform their process.
John On 2009Apr17, at 12:03 PM, Skeeve Stevens wrote:
I did something that I don't normally do... sat on my initial response to this email for a couple of days.But my feelings are still the same. Randy, your manner is quite rude in what I see to be very useful comments from our brothers at RIPE, comments that I wholeheartedly support and also support their right to make them - whether it had been discussed on their list or not. These are genuine comments/concerns from another RIR and should be considered seriously.If a non-APNIC member has the ability to become elected to the EC, then reasonably they should also be able to comment on policy, partake in discussions and so on. If this is not the case and there is a rule against this, can someone please advise?From: sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.net On Behalf Of Randy BushAs co-chair of the RIPE Address Policy Working Group I would like to express our concern about prop-050.this is an official statement of the ripe address policy wg? this was discussed on the wg's mailing list and consensus was reached?Sorry for the confusion. No, this was not discussed on the RIPE APWG mailing list. This is just the APWG chairs having some concerns :)so, it is actually the comment one non-apnic person. thank you for your input.