<html><body bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><div><br><font class="Apple-style-span" color="#0023A3"><font class="Apple-style-span" color="#000000"><br></font></font></div><blockquote type="cite"><div><span></span><br><blockquote type="cite"><span>I would go further and say that no policy has ever even been proposed</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>by the AAWG. So why don't you do something about it? The RIPE NCC</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>(and I'm sure the other WG chairs, should you need advice) are poised,</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>waiting to help you.</span><br></blockquote><span></span><br><span>I was under the impression that the BCP document (RIPE-409) had the</span><br><span>status of a policy. If that is not so, then your point is valid.</span><br><span>And it is certainly high time this group DID produce some policy.</span><br><br></div></blockquote><br><div>To comment on this and this alone, at least for the moment, RIPE-409 is a RIPE document that Rodney (the chair of the Anti-Spam WG) chose to put through the PDP, a process that was really properly coming into being at the time. So while the PDP was used, the feeling was that it wasn't actually required. </div><div><br></div><div>So, in short, no policy has, as yet, passed through the AA-WG and I think it would be wrong to represent 409 as policy for the purposes if this conversation, if not all purposes. It is, for all its excellent content, a non-binding BCP document. </div><div><br></div><div>Brian. </div></body></html>