I keep adding Lottery Master to the blocked sender list but the emails keep arriving. Has anybody else encountered this problem? Nainsel. -----Original Message----- From: anti-abuse-wg-request@ripe.net Sent: Monday, October 12, 2015 11:00 AM To: anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net Subject: anti-abuse-wg Digest, Vol 48, Issue 16 Send anti-abuse-wg mailing list submissions to anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit https://www.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/anti-abuse-wg or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to anti-abuse-wg-request@ripe.net You can reach the person managing the list at anti-abuse-wg-owner@ripe.net When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of anti-abuse-wg digest..." Today's Topics: 1. Re: anti-abuse-wg Digest, Vol 48, Issue 10 (Brian Nisbet) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2015 10:38:54 +0100 From: Brian Nisbet <brian.nisbet@heanet.ie> To: anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] anti-abuse-wg Digest, Vol 48, Issue 10 Message-ID: <561B7FAE.4090704@heanet.ie> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Gentlemen, Thank you for the nomination and the answer. So noted. Brian Co-Chair, RIPE AA-WG On 09/10/2015 21:49, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
In message <55BB79F4004C439393E855B0BC8065F6@SuperPC>, "Marilson" <marilson.mapa@gmail.com> wrote:
I would like to nominate a person for the second chair: meu amigo Ronald F. Guilmette (friend for one more day).
While I appreciate this unexpected (and largely unearned) vote of confidence, unfortunately I find it necessary to quote a man whose actual accomplishments actually did warrant his consideration for high office:
"If nominated I will not run; if elected I will not serve." -- William Tecumseh Sherman
(I might actually be tempted to volunteer for the position is question, but given that I am not physically present anywhere within the RIPE geographical region, I feel sure that even if relevant bylaws permitted it, I would be committing a serious disservice to the entire WG if I were to make any pretense of fulfilling the role in question, e.g. by merely "phoning it in", so to speak.)
Regards, rfg
P.S. Thanks largely to absoluely everybody on this mailing list, I was compelled to do the research and to find my own answers to the two key questions that I posted here the other day. The clear implications of what I found (in the ICANN 2013 RAA) are, I would say, worse than disturbing, about which I will have more to say later on.
What I found does raise one other question however... which I will post here now in the complete expectation of the exact same level of helpful responsiveness which you all accorded to my last two questions:
When the exact wording of the 21013 RAA was being negotiated... by ICANN, sitting across the table from such other "stakeholders" as the Registrars Committee... who exactly was the lead negotiator for ICANN's side of the table?
End of anti-abuse-wg Digest, Vol 48, Issue 16 *********************************************