On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 3:08 PM, Gert Doering <gert@space.net> wrote:

Hi,

On Thu, Sep 06, 2012 at 02:54:59PM +0200, Jan Ingvoldstad wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 2:23 PM, Dan Luedtke <maildanrl@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > <provoking>I don't see how anyone can be against this proposal.</provoking>
>
> I don't see the real world benefit of the proposal, there are insufficient
> arguments for it, and I'm therefore with Tore on this one.
>
> (So now you perhaps see how anyone _can_ be against it.)

Uh. Can you please be a bit more explicit, as not everybody might remember
Tore's stance on this?

Oh, I'm terribly sorry, that was extremely clumsy of me!

Tore's stance is here:

http://lists.ripe.net/pipermail/address-policy-wg/2012-September/007063.html

I take it that you are opposing the proposal? Any variant of the proposal,
or would you support the "publish, but anonymize rejected transfers" option?

The stance that I'm agreeing with is regarding publication of rejected transfers and rejected pre-approvals, so "publish, but anonymize rejected transfers/pre-approvals" is good with me.

And, for the record, I agree with the notion that the NCC may:

- publish aggregates
- historical versions of alloclist.txt

without any change in policy.

It's a bit hard for the chairs to figure out which way to go if opinions
are not stated clearly...