Ciprian

On Wednesday, October 19, 2016, Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN <ripe-wgs@radu-adrian.feurdean.net> wrote:

On Wed, Oct 19, 2016, at 10:33, Aleksey Bulgakov wrote:
> Hi.
>
> It is obviously the 99℅ of members want to withdraw this proposal in any
> versions, but the NCC strongly moves it forward. May be the NCC has own
> reasons to do it, but why it doesn't notice evident things.

Except that members (RIPE NCC members), unless they voice their concerns
here, on this list, don't have a word to say on policy development.

As for myself, I still strongly oppose for too many reasons (it would
take half of a working day to write all them down again).
As a very quick and incomplete reminder:
- "two levels membership" / differentiated services
- "RIPE NCC as an investment fund" (or "former Gold distributor")
- uncertainty for feasibility of business processes (what exactly is
M&A today ? , what will it be tomorrow ?)
- stubbornness on arguments/issues that still do not yet apply
everywhere or that still have enough space for a middlegroud
- ....
-
https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/2016-August/011700.html
-
https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/2016-June/011565.html
-
https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/2016-June/011548.html
No, I don't think any of my concerns has been addressed.

And last but not least, differentiated treatment of the proposals (ideas
in general), depending on who is the proposer and how does it fit within
the ideas of the "establishment".