[anti-abuse-wg] anti-abuse-wg Digest, Vol 48, Issue 18

Hi,
Unfortunately Nainsel and according to some members of this group, including 
the Co-Chair, you should not send to us "spamming single specific incident." 
We should deal only with "larger issue".
Nevertheless, I must inform you that all the larger issues I brought were 
transformed into spamming single specific incident and were not discussed. 
Faced with such inconsistency I would not know how to guide you.

Unless better guidance, with my regards
Marilson

-----Mensagem Original----- 
From: anti-abuse-wg-request at ripe.net
Sent: Sunday, October 18, 2015 8:00 AM
To: anti-abuse-wg at ripe.net
Subject: anti-abuse-wg Digest, Vol 48, Issue 18

Send anti-abuse-wg mailing list submissions to
anti-abuse-wg at ripe.net

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://www.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/anti-abuse-wg
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
anti-abuse-wg-request at ripe.net

You can reach the person managing the list at
anti-abuse-wg-owner at ripe.net

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of anti-abuse-wg digest..."


Today's Topics:

   1. Re: Lottery Master (nainsel705 at btinternet.com)


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Sat, 17 Oct 2015 17:20:39 +0100
From: <nainsel705 at btinternet.com>
To: <anti-abuse-wg at ripe.net>
Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Lottery Master
Message-ID: <AAB6345CED83448C94AC3239275AFF91 at DESKTOPRAHO0D9>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
reply-type=original

I keep adding Lottery Master to the blocked sender list but the emails keep
arriving.  Has anybody else encountered this problem?
Nainsel.

-----Original Message----- 
From: anti-abuse-wg-request at ripe.net
Sent: Monday, October 12, 2015 11:00 AM
To: anti-abuse-wg at ripe.net
Subject: anti-abuse-wg Digest, Vol 48, Issue 16

Send anti-abuse-wg mailing list submissions to
anti-abuse-wg at ripe.net

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://www.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/anti-abuse-wg
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
anti-abuse-wg-request at ripe.net

You can reach the person managing the list at
anti-abuse-wg-owner at ripe.net

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of anti-abuse-wg digest..."


Today's Topics:

   1. Re: anti-abuse-wg Digest, Vol 48, Issue 10 (Brian Nisbet)


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2015 10:38:54 +0100
From: Brian Nisbet <brian.nisbet at heanet.ie>
To: anti-abuse-wg at ripe.net
Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] anti-abuse-wg Digest, Vol 48, Issue 10
Message-ID: <561B7FAE.4090704 at heanet.ie>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed

Gentlemen,

Thank you for the nomination and the answer. So noted.

Brian
Co-Chair, RIPE AA-WG


On 09/10/2015 21:49, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
> In message <55BB79F4004C439393E855B0BC8065F6 at SuperPC>,
> "Marilson" <marilson.mapa at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I would like to nominate a person for the second chair: meu amigo Ronald
>> F.
>> Guilmette (friend for one more day).
>
> While I appreciate this unexpected (and largely unearned) vote of
> confidence, unfortunately I find it necessary to quote a man whose
> actual accomplishments actually did warrant his consideration for
> high office:
>
> "If nominated I will not run; if elected I will not serve."
> -- William Tecumseh Sherman
>
> (I might actually be tempted to volunteer for the position is question,
> but given that I am not physically present anywhere within the RIPE
> geographical region, I feel sure that even if relevant bylaws permitted
> it, I would be committing a serious disservice to the entire WG if I
> were to make any pretense of fulfilling the role in question, e.g. by
> merely "phoning it in", so to speak.)
>
>
> Regards,
> rfg
>
>
> P.S.  Thanks largely to absoluely everybody on this mailing list, I was
> compelled to do the research and to find my own answers to the two key
> questions that I posted here the other day.  The clear implications of
> what I found (in the ICANN 2013 RAA) are, I would say, worse than
> disturbing,
> about which I will have more to say later on.
>
> What I found does raise one other question however... which I will post
> here now in the complete expectation of the exact same level of helpful
> responsiveness which you all accorded to my last two questions:
>
> When the exact wording of the 21013 RAA was being negotiated... by
> ICANN, sitting across the table from such other "stakeholders" as the
> Registrars Committee... who exactly was the lead negotiator for ICANN's
> side of the table?
>



End of anti-abuse-wg Digest, Vol 48, Issue 16
*********************************************




End of anti-abuse-wg Digest, Vol 48, Issue 18
*********************************************