[address-policy-wg] pointless meta-issue on WG renaming

Hi,

On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 11:39:42AM +0000, Lu wrote:
> "We" is a too board definition. Me as part of Ripe community are not agree with that "we" for example. Please provide valuable argument if you think my suggestion is " pointless".

Whatever it is, the future of the IPv6 working group MUST NOT be discussed 
on the address policy WG mailing list.

Please stop this thread *here* - if you feel the IPv6 WG should be renamed
or closed or joined with the plenary, discuss it over there.

Gert Doering
        -- APWG chair
-- 
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 (0)89/32356-444           USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 811 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20141112/5d96d51c/attachment.sig>