RE: [address-policy-wg] 2007-08 New Draft Document Published (Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources)

[<michael.dillon@localhost]

> ------- snip --------
> ETNO, in coming to the position that it did, considered the 
> transfer issue from all angles, and the points that you 
> raised in your e-mail were part of that consideration. ETNO 
> will continue to contribute the RIPE mailing list in the 
> future but see no reason at this stage to change its position.
> ------- snip --------
> 
> This can be read as "you can talk all you want, but we've 
> decided!" - and this has been, as I wrote, ill-received.

May I suggest that you, as RIPE Address Policy WG chair
should take this issue up with the ETNO Naming Addressing
and Numbering Issues WG Chairperson who wrote those 
words, and not use them to wave the flag against ETNO.

When I read those same words which you quoted, I interpreted
them quite differently. But regardless of the specific policy
points under discussion, there is clearly a cultural 
misunderstanding between some RIPE participants and some
ETNO participants. Dialogue is the way to get this resolved.

> I would very much welcome all ETNO members to discuss the 
> matters *here*
> - they might even have different opinions regarding proposals.

Have you asked ETNO to provide you the email addresses for
all ETNO representatives in order to invite them to join in?

--Michael Dillon