Hi Brian, Co-Chairs, and all, Thank you for the clarification and for the work you do in keeping the Working Group discussions constructive and accessible. I fully agree that the mailing list should remain the primary place for discussion and that participants should be able to understand and respond to arguments without having to open external documents. At the same time, I think this raises a useful question about how we, as a technical community, should manage detailed and evidence-based contributions to complex policy proposals. Some proposals involve significant operational, technical, contractual, and procedural considerations. Properly examining these can require more detailed analysis than is practical to include in a single email. Perhaps a constructive approach would be to encourage: * A concise summary of the position and principal concerns directly in the email body. * Clearly identified technical questions that can be discussed individually on the mailing list. * Supporting documentation, were useful, as supplementary material rather than a replacement for discussion. * Responses that address the substance of the concerns raised, independently of the format in which supporting analysis was originally presented. This would help preserve accessibility while ensuring that participants can contribute the level of technical detail necessary for informed policy development. In the case of proposal 2026-02, our intention in providing detailed comments was to contribute operational experience and identify specific issues requiring clarification before the proposal progresses. These include the technical basis for ROA deletion as evidence of remediation, the nature and proportionality of proposed restrictions, and the treatment of resources registered to entities whose legal existence or accountability cannot be established. We are very happy to bring these points into separate, focused email discussions so that the community and the proposer can consider them individually. I also agree that the RIPE NCC's formal impact analysis is an important part of the PDP. At the same time, community discussion provides an opportunity to identify questions and operational consequences that may be relevant to that analysis. Ultimately, I believe we share the same objective: an open, accessible, technically rigorous discussion in which substantive concerns can be examined and addressed constructively. Thank you again for raising the matter. Kind regards Excedo Networks AB Michael Duffy, CEO/CISO _________________________________________________________________________ Excedo Networks AB - Jan Stenbecks Torg 17, 164 40 KISTA, SWEDEN Email: michael.duffy@excedo.se<mailto:michael.duffy@excedo.se> _________________________________________________________________________