Dear Hank,

Can we have a list of who was in attendance,

...while I think the "who" (explicit list of names) is less relevant, I guess you can get that piece of information from the nice folks at meeting@ripe.net ...

and how many people voted in favor of removing the country attribute

usually we do not conduct formal votes, but rather try to find a common position regarding a particular proposal. The number of people in the room is (as usual) part of my WG summary report to the plenary which is available from the net at http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-48/presentations/ripe48-plenary-db.pd...

and whether people realized that the country attribute is used by organizations?

Yes indeed, please see slide #4, item 1. and slide #5 action point AP 48.1 And in particular there was concern that the use of this entry is less than helpful for some parties because there is no way of making sure that data is "correct" (for any definition of correct [1] :-) and relevant for the particular use...

And what is the rule on consensus - does attendance at the RIPE conference have more weight than discussion in the online mailing list?

Yes, and no, but I presume this is off-topic in that context?

-Hank

Wilfried. [1] one of the questions for which we could not find an answer is: which country to put into the object - . the country of residence of the LIR . the country of residence of the admin-c: of an piece of address space? . the country off "deployment" (which is fuzzy in itself...) ______________________________________________________________________