[address-policy-wg] IPv4 Maintenance Policy

Gert:
Let me get you corrected on the facts. You seem to have lost track of them and are confusing your animosity toward certain ideas/people with off-topic discussion. 

My goal is to encourage a more robust and substantive discussion of the reasons why RIPE (or any other RIR) finds it necessary to sacrifice registry accuracy in order to pressure legacy holders into contracts.

The conversation in question began with a discussion of a specific sentence of the proposed IPv4 Maintenance policy, having to do with legacy holders. I expressed concern as to the competition policy implications of that. There was no response to this highly substantive question from you or anyone else associated with the development of that policy. 

There was also a concern expressed by Nussbacher, which was followed by a sarcastic one liner by Randy Bush which, I note, did not invoke any reprimand from you. 

In reply to my substantive comment, there was a statement from McTim that RIPE, like all RIRs, always follows the will of the community. This was a rather interesting comment given that the policy in question has not yet passed and thus we do not know whether it reflects anyone's will except that of the people who proposed it. 

But this statement that "the RIRs are always good" did not lead to any reaction from you. 

McTim's comment was followed by my humorous substitution of "community" with "the voices." This was followed by a reprimand. 

I think the pattern is clear. 

> I do.  If discussions stray too far from the topic at hand (which is
> "IPv4 maintenance policy", not "global policy forum" or "the RIRs are
> good/evil/..." whatever), I'll call to order.

Another example of your discriminatory attitude. There is nothing in the messages under this heading about a "global policy forum." 

Moreover, this is an address policy forum and it is well within its remit to discuss global policy development and a global policy forum, if people here want to do so. The fact that you do not like the idea is not a justification to suppress discussion of it. 

Now, before you or anyone else accuses me of wasting everyone's time, let me just say that the real cause of the distraction here is your own (Gert's) attempt to arbitrarily single out a particular discussant for one (admittedly) sarcastic remark (although one in a veritable ocean of such remarks involving multiple people), a remark that was no more or less off topic than the comment that preceded it. 

Attempts to deal with important disagreements via intimidation and silencing won't work with this guy. 


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gert Doering [mailto:gert at space.net]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2012 9:15 AM
> To: Milton L Mueller
> Cc: Gert Doering; address-policy-wg at ripe.net
> Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] IPv4 Maintenance Policy
> 
> Hi,
> 
> On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 01:03:22PM +0000, Milton L Mueller wrote:
> > Gert:
> > Learn to take a joke.
> 
> In the context this was posted, it wasn't obvious whether this was a
> joke or yet another nasty remark.  But it was off-topic in any case, so
> it doesn't particularily matter.
> 
> > And try to apply the same standard to RIR supporters as to critics,
> ok?
> 
> I do.  If discussions stray too far from the topic at hand (which is
> "IPv4 maintenance policy", not "global policy forum" or "the RIRs are
> good/evil/..." whatever), I'll call to order.
> 
> Now, if you have something to contribute, I'm all ears...
> 
> Gert Doering
>         -- NetMaster
> --
> have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?
> 
> SpaceNet AG                        Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard
> Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14          Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-
> Culemann
> D-80807 Muenchen                   HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
> Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444            USt-IdNr.: DE813185279