Thank you, yes, we did before. 😊

If what I wrote on the 25^th of March is unclear, please let me know. To repeat, messages of support are useful and indicative, but they do not carry an argument.

Thanks,

Brian

Co-Chair, RIPE AA-WG

Brian Nisbet

Service Operations Manager

HEAnet CLG, Ireland's National Education and Research Network

1st Floor, 5 George's Dock, IFSC, Dublin D01 X8N7, Ireland

+35316609040 brian.nisbet@heanet.ie www.heanet.ie

Registered in Ireland, No. 275301. CRA No. 20036270

From: anti-abuse-wg <anti-abuse-wg-bounces@ripe.net> On Behalf Of Töma Gavrichenkov
Sent: Saturday 30 March 2019 10:08
To: Carlos Friaças <cfriacas@fccn.pt>
Cc: anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net
Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Proposal 2019-03 BGP Hijacking

On Sat, Mar 30, 2019, 10:23 AM Carlos Friaças via anti-abuse-wg <anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net> wrote:

Do supporters need to specify which parts of the proposal's text are more
meaningful for them?

Perhaps one of the Chairs can shed some light.

They in fact have done that before. To quote:

---- start ----

From: Brian Nisbet <brian.nisbet@heanet.ie>
Date: Mon, Mar 25, 2019, 10:12 AM
Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-03 New Policy Proposal (BGP Hijacking is a RIPE Policy Violation)

[..] To clarify, the discussion on this proposal is a discussion, not a vote. When judging consensus the Co-Chairs will look at the points made during the discussion, not count the +1s. Of course it is useful to get a feeling for general agreement, so simple statements of support or dissent are very useful, but they are not the core of the thing.

---- end ----

--

Töma