[anti-abuse-wg] Report & Co-Chair's Decision on Proposal 2019-04

Hi,

On Tue, Sep 08, 2020 at 01:27:14AM +1000, JJS JJS wrote:
> That fact that you classify my email as being on the "no" argument, shows
> how misguided you are.
> 
> Not for one second was I against this proposal, just the point about
> mandating emails.
> 
> There is no consensus "against" this proposal.
> 
> Your methodology of surveying views is so warped, it is unbelievable.

There is no consensus *for* this proposal, and that is what would be
required to proceed.

There does not need to be "consensus against" (which, indeed, would make
the WG chair's life much easier).

The argument "those that are in favour of the proposal do not know that
they should speak up" is deeply flawed - if there is a very obviously
controversial discussion, and people feel deeply about either side, 
they will speak up.


I think the WG chairs had quite a difficult task on their hands, and
the summary is very detailed and I find it well representing the voices
I can remember (thanks!).  If you feel misrepresented, you can always 
point out where you spoke up otherwise - everything is archived.

Gert Doering
        -- with some experience with policy proposals
-- 
have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?

SpaceNet AG                      Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael Emmer
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: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/anti-abuse-wg/attachments/20200907/eccb0824/attachment.sig>