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.
Don't speak for me Nick. A response is coming. I know your tactics well. They never change. You like to hit a proposer with a mass of legalistic speak. You swamp them with it in one dump hoping they will be overwhelmed. They won't be able to handle it and yet another proposal will bite the dust. Not this time...but it takes more than 5 minutes.
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.
What you write is not reasonable criticism. What you are saying here is that if the proposer (person) can't handle your mass criticism, then the policy proposal (issue) should fail. I will take my time and then calmly address your comments. This issue is too important to fail again.
Cheers
Denis