<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> <HTML><HEAD> <META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=us-ascii"> <META content="MSHTML 6.00.2800.1170" name=GENERATOR></HEAD> <BODY> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I agree fully with you, Daniele.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Mike Norris</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid"> <DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader dir=ltr align=left>-----Original Message----- From: ncc-services-wg-admin@ripe.net [mailto:ncc-services-wg-admin@ripe.net]On Behalf Of Bovio@aol.com Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2003 9:21 AM To: address-policy-wg@ripe.net; ncc-services-wg@ripe.net Subject: [ncc-services-wg] Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: ICANN vs RIPE NCC, was Re: Summary of the PI ...... </DIV>In a message dated 11/08/03 17:51:19 W. Europe Daylight Time, daniel.karrenberg@ripe.net writes: <BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px" TYPE="CITE">I have not stopped listening to concrete ideas about improving the RIPE NCC. I am still here at the RIPE NCC working and listening. Of course the bureaucratic developments you sneer at *do* happen to some degree. This is inevitable and both you and I know it. The ability of individuals like you and me to influence things immediately and directly is reduced. Of course I personally I do not agree with all things the RIRs do and more often I do not agree with *how* things are done. What seems to divide us is that I still work to improve the 'least of all evils' structure and you sneer at it providing no alternative. I would hope that more people will chose the former instead of the latter. I also hope that people still see the relative mertis and the differences in legitimacy that exist between the various organisations. Sneering at the RIPE NCC without suggesting either alternatives or improvements does not help. </BLOCKQUOTE> I stand 100% with Daniel here. I can't speak for the others RIRs but I strongly believe the RIPE-NCC has made significant efforts in the recent past to listen to its membership, streamline procedures, and positively react to constructive criticism. There is more work to do, no doubt about it, but I can't see how flaming on mailing lists helps. Whomever has concrete ideas: I propose we move this discussion to the ncc-services-wg list/group, that was created exactly for this purpose. Daniele </BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>