[anti-abuse-wg] Hijack Factory: AS201640 / AS200002

On Sat, Nov 08, 2014 at 12:11:48PM -0800, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
>Other than my own rather informal suggestion that contract terms and
>expectation could be made more plain, I don't recall having seen
>anything specific put forward here would might even vaguely be called
>an actual "proposal".  So I'm mystified about what it is that you
>are, I gather, opposed to.

I'm opposed to this recent trend of wanting to make policy "in
the back room". Traditionally, the forum to debate and agree
policy proposals is the address-policy WG which also has the most
subscribers (although participation is lower than I'd like to see
there, too). Only in the last couple of years has there been a
trend to attempt to make policy in the "specialist" WGs.

Policy-making at RIPE needs all the democracy it can get and my
intention is to prevent "disenfranchisement" of stakeholders who
do not want to (or can't) be subscribed to every ML there is.

This does not affect my opposition to the matter in hand, but I
reserve argument until something more concrete is on the table.
>

rgds,
Sascha Luck