Serge, Serge Droz wrote on 31/07/2026 18:30:
It's not venting. It's stating the facts:
it's taking a swipe at people.
All you write are reasons why we should not change things. Alternatives could be
There are plenty of other proposals or groups of proposals that I've supported over the years, some controversial, some not so. This isn't because I don't want online abuse to be dealt with, or that I like objecting to RIPE policy proposals: it's because the proposals that are coming out of security-wg / abuse-wg have, in my opinion, really serious and fundamental problems with them which haven't been addressed by the proposal authors.
1. Check how the others do and copy it
or
2. Instead of saying X is not workable, you could say It seems X is no workable, but we could try Y to solve this. But the second part never comes.
It never comes from the policy proposer either, which is the actual problem here. Also, I don't have a workable alternative to the reality that the RIPE NCC doesn't have supranational judicial authority or that it's subject to the laws of the country where it legally resides. It's also correct to say that when someone comes up with a RIPE Community policy proposal, that it needs to be able to withstand reasonable criticism, and that if the proposer can't withstand that criticism, then the policy proposal should fail. The proposals aren't precious. I've had plenty of proposals shot down by other people. So what? Nick