<div dir="ltr"><font face="arial, sans-serif">Hi Jordi,<br><br>I am very disappointed with what you are doing. There are a vast amount of significant objections that clearly state this policy is a no-go.<br><br>And it is not only a no-go here, but you have also been clearly told so in RIPE as well for the same policy. Why are you not questioning the decision of the RIPE working group on the same policy and with very similar major objections?<br><br>A simple google would find you the following results (<a href="https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/2020-May/013189.html">https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/2020-May/013189.html</a>), and they are all coming from veterans of the RIPE community:<br><br>“Members who "care" will probably deal with issues and those who don't care won't start caring, so I'm struggling to see what value this brings”<br><br> Mr Michele Neylon<br> Blacknight Solutions<br><br><br>“Why does this need to be a policy? This is an operational implementation thing, not a strategic direction issue.”<br><br>Nick Hilliard<br><br><br>“I’m even more confused and struggling to understand how this is relevant to the AP WG. Could you please explain?<br><br>First of all, this dashboard thing is an operational service matter. Please clarify why you think it needs to be a policy issue.<br><br>Next, if you wanted to know if the NCC is considering this dashboard idea, you could simply have asked them. Or raised the matter in the NCC Services WG. Have you done either of those things? If so, what was the response?”<br><br>Jim Reid<br><br>Just to quote a few.<br><br>People have been repeatedly telling you multiple times: this is not a good policy, and you counter-arguing with the chair and saying you have addressed those concerns is not really a way to work constructively.</font><div><font face="arial, sans-serif"><br></font></div><div><font face="arial, sans-serif">Regards,</font></div><div><font face="arial, sans-serif"><br></font></div><div><font face="arial, sans-serif">Lamiaa<br clear="all"></font><div><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><br><div><br></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div><br></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">Le mer. 30 sept. 2020 à 16:05, Fernando Frediani <<a href="mailto:fhfrediani@gmail.com">fhfrediani@gmail.com</a>> a écrit :<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div>
<p>Hello Chloe, would you support the same reasoning for the
Resource Transfer Policy as well ?</p>
<p>Regards<br>
Fernando<br>
</p>
<div>On 30/09/2020 11:53, Chloe Kung wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt">Hi Jaco, <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt">I don’t see
why you cannot find valid objections and hence think this
proposal should be in the last call. I agree with Gaby. The
fact that many of us are still discussing the matter and
object the proposal in all different reasons, is the prove
of there is no reaching rough consensus. And so we should
not rush it into last call just because some think it’s
doing good or all problems have been taken care of.
<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt">Like for
objection d; no proper definition of the term Abuse, there
is still a need to address on it. Yes the proposal is about
“building” abuse contact, but just like what Jordi has said,
“ The policy only needs to state what the staff should
evaluate and thus, what members should do”, if the
definition of the word/ act of Abuse is not clear, how can
the staff evaluate such action then? Let's say if they
interpret those cases in their own different ways, it will
not be fair to any of the parties nor would it be something
we want I suppose. And there are high chance of having
mis-interpretation too!
<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt">Best,<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt">Chloe <u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset></fieldset>
<pre>_______________________________________________
RPD mailing list
<a href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net" target="_blank">RPD@afrinic.net</a>
<a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd" target="_blank">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br>
RPD mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net" target="_blank">RPD@afrinic.net</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd</a><br>
</blockquote></div>