Complaint and future of the APWG.
Hi Gert, and Chair, everyone here: This Email is my thought on what happened in past years in the APWG. First of all, I support turn on moderation on this list. secondly, I do feel there are two different kind of treatment here from one of the Chair. While my company information and false accusation getting posted in the list, all I heard from that Chair was: *"One is "people managed to get large chunks of address space before the* *last-/8 policy kicked in, and got rich selling them" (Jump SRL is anotherexample of this). There is not really anything we in address policycan do about this retroactively - and in any case, this is somethingthat will certainly not happen again, as there are no big chunks to bereceived anymore (but of course the NCC will look into it if fraudhappened, and the tax authorities might also be interested...)"* He does not stop the action and even named another company in the community in his reply. While yesterday someone making false accusation about me and my company yesterday, he even replied: *"Actually I can't see a personal attack here. I do see provable facts puton the table, which might reflect in a way that you might not like, but thatis the usual problem with transparency. All the data about, for example,37.222.0.0/15 <http://37.222.0.0/15> is available in the RIPE DB "--show-version <x>" output.While I do consider this only partially relevant to the policy proposalunder discussion, it *is* giving a background on what is happening orhas happened outside the last /8 range, and some of these transfers indeedmake the "30x /22 fast-transferred" issue look fairly marginal."* While I fail to understand what my company and my business has to do with RIPE policy discussion, and why my company has even related to this policy proposal under discussion(close loop for last /8), I was tried to explain to him: *"Put up a fact without statement is fine with me, putting up our IP range from the past is some how personal in my opinion, accusing me and my company "Abuser" is a statement in the public space without solicit evidence in which I first did not see the relevance to policy discussion, secondly it is unlawful as well.* *Here are two fundamental problem to your wording:* *1. The policy proposal under discussion is about protect the original intent of the last /8, in which the IP mentioned before has nothing to do with.* *2. Because it was legal to kill anyone on the street 1000 years ago does not justify for preventing pass a law today to prevent future killing, in another words, whatever happened in the past should has no relevance to this policy.* *Sure, any one can doubt my business and my motive as well, but both my business and my motive has nothing to do with 2015-1"to close loop of the /8". And such doubt is not for PWAG to discuss anyway. It is policy discussion list, even in the worst case, you think I do not follow the policy, you should report to RIPE NCC but not putting unverified accusation in the policy mailing list.* *Making me a bad guy does not justify the current bad behaviour.* *And I am not making worse for myself, I stay silence for the past years does not mean I did not see the list, I just followed advice by community member like Rob and everybody i talked in the Ripe meeting, I have been told let it go and not flight for it, and It also does not mean I will take on any accusation on me on a public space that I do care with. And I do believe you totally understand, what I do in my business is a personal issue, and I am very open to discuss with you in a private space, but not in the policy mailing list. To best of my knowledge, you have never approached me to talk with me or even ask me anything, without doing that and making statement in the public list is not very ethnic I believe."*
From my best impression of his personal opinion(feel free to correct me if I am wrong),he does not like anyone sell their IPs, in which is perfectly fine with me, everyone can have things they like or dislike, however, acting as chair of APWG, I believe integrity should be keep at highest level therefore personal emotion should not get involved.
I was 19 when I had my first RIPE meeting, I did not miss a single meeting since then, Gert and Sander and many other community members helped me a lot in the process to understand the fundamental part of the internet, I do appreciate for that, and my business has grow over years, and I always try to be a good community member and contributing to the community as much as I can, to be clear, everything I have ever posted in the APWG was for the general good of the community and not for my personal gain. "I don't like this guy so I am not going to protect his personal information and people can feel free to make false accusation on him as much as they want", this is the impression I had for past few month from this chair, while I called him politely ask him give me 2 mins to explain my business to him since he give me impression that he might believe I am an "absuer" (apologise if he does not think that way) and only request him to remain confidential, he refused to talk to me, and i hand up the call and here only way to left to protect future of my company and my name in attached, I have to do this call, I am making an complaint about this chair on his integrity of moderate this list. Because this is the complaint about the APWG chair, RIPE chair is CCed in the list. I do not expect anything from this complaint other than good discussion about policy in the future in this list, no more personal attach, no more personal information leaked, no more false accusation on things not related to the policy. End of the day, it is policy will affect millions of internet users in Europe, middle East, Russian, we really should stop childish acting like who did what so why cannot I do. Be professional. With regards. Lu On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 10:33 AM, Gert Doering <gert@space.net> wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 11:24:27AM +0300, Elvis Daniel Velea wrote:
PS: Gert, I know I promised yesterday I will no longer reply back to attacks, but I had to reply to this one and ask Ciprian (one more time) to stop. Can you also do something about it?
As a matter of last resort, we might turn on moderation for the APWG list.
I'm not really happy to even consider that, as it would hurt transparency and the flow of discussion ("if neither chair is around, things come to a stop", and "what are the criteria to block or pass a mail? will the chairs use this to influence the outcome of a discussion?") - but if this is not stopping RIGHT NOW, we'll have to.
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
-- -- Kind regards. Lu This transmission is intended solely for the addressee(s) shown above. It may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. Any review, dissemination or use of this transmission or its contents by persons other than the intended addressee(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify this office immediately and e-mail the original at the sender's address above by replying to this message and including the text of the transmission received.
Hi, As a casual reader of this list, I would say that a) there is nothing to be gained from mudslinging about past behaviours wrt IPv4 address acquisition/trading (if illegal things have happened, that’s for the authorities to investigate, and not for this list...) b) as a community we should ensure we have policies that allow the remaining scarce RIR IPv4 resource to be allocated fairly and equitably within our community for genuine use (which at this point ought to be with a view to supporting IPv6 transition - we were of course supposed to all be on IPv6 before IPv4 ran out, but hey….) c) as a community we should also be taking all reasonable steps to progress the transition to IPv6 (for which, for example, Apple’s announcement this week that its App Store would in future only add IPv6-capable apps was excellent news...) The tone of many posts here, of late, has been very disappointing. Let’s please try to be constructive. Tim
On 11 Jun 2015, at 10:47, Lu Heng <h.lu@anytimechinese.com> wrote:
Hi Gert, and Chair, everyone here:
This Email is my thought on what happened in past years in the APWG.
First of all, I support turn on moderation on this list.
secondly, I do feel there are two different kind of treatment here from one of the Chair.
While my company information and false accusation getting posted in the list, all I heard from that Chair was:
"One is "people managed to get large chunks of address space before the last-/8 policy kicked in, and got rich selling them" (Jump SRL is another example of this). There is not really anything we in address policy can do about this retroactively - and in any case, this is something that will certainly not happen again, as there are no big chunks to be received anymore (but of course the NCC will look into it if fraud happened, and the tax authorities might also be interested...)"
He does not stop the action and even named another company in the community in his reply.
While yesterday someone making false accusation about me and my company yesterday, he even replied:
"Actually I can't see a personal attack here. I do see provable facts put on the table, which might reflect in a way that you might not like, but that is the usual problem with transparency. All the data about, for example, MailScanner has detected a possible fraud attempt from "37.222.0.0" claiming to be 37.222.0.0/15 <http://37.222.0.0/15> is available in the RIPE DB "--show-version <x>" output.
While I do consider this only partially relevant to the policy proposal under discussion, it *is* giving a background on what is happening or has happened outside the last /8 range, and some of these transfers indeed make the "30x /22 fast-transferred" issue look fairly marginal."
While I fail to understand what my company and my business has to do with RIPE policy discussion, and why my company has even related to this policy proposal under discussion(close loop for last /8), I was tried to explain to him:
"Put up a fact without statement is fine with me, putting up our IP range from the past is some how personal in my opinion, accusing me and my company "Abuser" is a statement in the public space without solicit evidence in which I first did not see the relevance to policy discussion, secondly it is unlawful as well.
Here are two fundamental problem to your wording:
1. The policy proposal under discussion is about protect the original intent of the last /8, in which the IP mentioned before has nothing to do with.
2. Because it was legal to kill anyone on the street 1000 years ago does not justify for preventing pass a law today to prevent future killing, in another words, whatever happened in the past should has no relevance to this policy.
Sure, any one can doubt my business and my motive as well, but both my business and my motive has nothing to do with 2015-1"to close loop of the /8". And such doubt is not for PWAG to discuss anyway. It is policy discussion list, even in the worst case, you think I do not follow the policy, you should report to RIPE NCC but not putting unverified accusation in the policy mailing list.
Making me a bad guy does not justify the current bad behaviour.
And I am not making worse for myself, I stay silence for the past years does not mean I did not see the list, I just followed advice by community member like Rob and everybody i talked in the Ripe meeting, I have been told let it go and not flight for it, and It also does not mean I will take on any accusation on me on a public space that I do care with. And I do believe you totally understand, what I do in my business is a personal issue, and I am very open to discuss with you in a private space, but not in the policy mailing list. To best of my knowledge, you have never approached me to talk with me or even ask me anything, without doing that and making statement in the public list is not very ethnic I believe."
From my best impression of his personal opinion(feel free to correct me if I am wrong),he does not like anyone sell their IPs, in which is perfectly fine with me, everyone can have things they like or dislike, however, acting as chair of APWG, I believe integrity should be keep at highest level therefore personal emotion should not get involved.
I was 19 when I had my first RIPE meeting, I did not miss a single meeting since then, Gert and Sander and many other community members helped me a lot in the process to understand the fundamental part of the internet, I do appreciate for that, and my business has grow over years, and I always try to be a good community member and contributing to the community as much as I can, to be clear, everything I have ever posted in the APWG was for the general good of the community and not for my personal gain.
"I don't like this guy so I am not going to protect his personal information and people can feel free to make false accusation on him as much as they want", this is the impression I had for past few month from this chair, while I called him politely ask him give me 2 mins to explain my business to him since he give me impression that he might believe I am an "absuer" (apologise if he does not think that way) and only request him to remain confidential, he refused to talk to me, and i hand up the call and here only way to left to protect future of my company and my name in attached, I have to do this call, I am making an complaint about this chair on his integrity of moderate this list.
Because this is the complaint about the APWG chair, RIPE chair is CCed in the list.
I do not expect anything from this complaint other than good discussion about policy in the future in this list, no more personal attach, no more personal information leaked, no more false accusation on things not related to the policy.
End of the day, it is policy will affect millions of internet users in Europe, middle East, Russian, we really should stop childish acting like who did what so why cannot I do.
Be professional.
With regards.
Lu
On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 10:33 AM, Gert Doering <gert@space.net <mailto:gert@space.net>> wrote: Hi,
On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 11:24:27AM +0300, Elvis Daniel Velea wrote:
PS: Gert, I know I promised yesterday I will no longer reply back to attacks, but I had to reply to this one and ask Ciprian (one more time) to stop. Can you also do something about it?
As a matter of last resort, we might turn on moderation for the APWG list.
I'm not really happy to even consider that, as it would hurt transparency and the flow of discussion ("if neither chair is around, things come to a stop", and "what are the criteria to block or pass a mail? will the chairs use this to influence the outcome of a discussion?") - but if this is not stopping RIGHT NOW, we'll have to.
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 <tel:%2B49%20%280%2989%2F32356-444> USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
-- -- Kind regards. Lu
This transmission is intended solely for the addressee(s) shown above. It may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. Any review, dissemination or use of this transmission or its contents by persons other than the intended addressee(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify this office immediately and e-mail the original at the sender's address above by replying to this message and including the text of the transmission received.
Good points, agreed. It’s normal for some community members feel aggrieved by suspected serious foul play, be it legit or not. Inevitable really, considering what has become the (rather ugly) IPv4 gold rush. However to echo Gert, APWG is not the place for raising claims. Better take these directly to the RIPE NCC. Regards, James IP Address Manager T + 31 20 778 9270 M + 31 (0) 652 858 699 jkennedy@libertyglobal.com<mailto:jkennedy@libertyglobal.com> From: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Tim Chown Sent: 11 June 2015 12:27 To: Lu Heng Cc: Gert Doering; chair@ripe.net; address-policy-wg@ripe.net Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] {Disarmed} Complaint and future of the APWG. Hi, As a casual reader of this list, I would say that a) there is nothing to be gained from mudslinging about past behaviours wrt IPv4 address acquisition/trading (if illegal things have happened, that’s for the authorities to investigate, and not for this list...) b) as a community we should ensure we have policies that allow the remaining scarce RIR IPv4 resource to be allocated fairly and equitably within our community for genuine use (which at this point ought to be with a view to supporting IPv6 transition - we were of course supposed to all be on IPv6 before IPv4 ran out, but hey….) c) as a community we should also be taking all reasonable steps to progress the transition to IPv6 (for which, for example, Apple’s announcement this week that its App Store would in future only add IPv6-capable apps was excellent news...) The tone of many posts here, of late, has been very disappointing. Let’s please try to be constructive. Tim On 11 Jun 2015, at 10:47, Lu Heng <h.lu@anytimechinese.com<mailto:h.lu@anytimechinese.com>> wrote: Hi Gert, and Chair, everyone here: This Email is my thought on what happened in past years in the APWG. First of all, I support turn on moderation on this list. secondly, I do feel there are two different kind of treatment here from one of the Chair. While my company information and false accusation getting posted in the list, all I heard from that Chair was: "One is "people managed to get large chunks of address space before the last-/8 policy kicked in, and got rich selling them" (Jump SRL is another example of this). There is not really anything we in address policy can do about this retroactively - and in any case, this is something that will certainly not happen again, as there are no big chunks to be received anymore (but of course the NCC will look into it if fraud happened, and the tax authorities might also be interested...)" He does not stop the action and even named another company in the community in his reply. While yesterday someone making false accusation about me and my company yesterday, he even replied: "Actually I can't see a personal attack here. I do see provable facts put on the table, which might reflect in a way that you might not like, but that is the usual problem with transparency. All the data about, for example, MailScanner has detected a possible fraud attempt from "37.222.0.0" claiming to be 37.222.0.0/15<http://37.222.0.0/15> is available in the RIPE DB "--show-version <x>" output. While I do consider this only partially relevant to the policy proposal under discussion, it *is* giving a background on what is happening or has happened outside the last /8 range, and some of these transfers indeed make the "30x /22 fast-transferred" issue look fairly marginal." While I fail to understand what my company and my business has to do with RIPE policy discussion, and why my company has even related to this policy proposal under discussion(close loop for last /8), I was tried to explain to him: "Put up a fact without statement is fine with me, putting up our IP range from the past is some how personal in my opinion, accusing me and my company "Abuser" is a statement in the public space without solicit evidence in which I first did not see the relevance to policy discussion, secondly it is unlawful as well. Here are two fundamental problem to your wording: 1. The policy proposal under discussion is about protect the original intent of the last /8, in which the IP mentioned before has nothing to do with. 2. Because it was legal to kill anyone on the street 1000 years ago does not justify for preventing pass a law today to prevent future killing, in another words, whatever happened in the past should has no relevance to this policy. Sure, any one can doubt my business and my motive as well, but both my business and my motive has nothing to do with 2015-1"to close loop of the /8". And such doubt is not for PWAG to discuss anyway. It is policy discussion list, even in the worst case, you think I do not follow the policy, you should report to RIPE NCC but not putting unverified accusation in the policy mailing list. Making me a bad guy does not justify the current bad behaviour. And I am not making worse for myself, I stay silence for the past years does not mean I did not see the list, I just followed advice by community member like Rob and everybody i talked in the Ripe meeting, I have been told let it go and not flight for it, and It also does not mean I will take on any accusation on me on a public space that I do care with. And I do believe you totally understand, what I do in my business is a personal issue, and I am very open to discuss with you in a private space, but not in the policy mailing list. To best of my knowledge, you have never approached me to talk with me or even ask me anything, without doing that and making statement in the public list is not very ethnic I believe." From my best impression of his personal opinion(feel free to correct me if I am wrong),he does not like anyone sell their IPs, in which is perfectly fine with me, everyone can have things they like or dislike, however, acting as chair of APWG, I believe integrity should be keep at highest level therefore personal emotion should not get involved. I was 19 when I had my first RIPE meeting, I did not miss a single meeting since then, Gert and Sander and many other community members helped me a lot in the process to understand the fundamental part of the internet, I do appreciate for that, and my business has grow over years, and I always try to be a good community member and contributing to the community as much as I can, to be clear, everything I have ever posted in the APWG was for the general good of the community and not for my personal gain. "I don't like this guy so I am not going to protect his personal information and people can feel free to make false accusation on him as much as they want", this is the impression I had for past few month from this chair, while I called him politely ask him give me 2 mins to explain my business to him since he give me impression that he might believe I am an "absuer" (apologise if he does not think that way) and only request him to remain confidential, he refused to talk to me, and i hand up the call and here only way to left to protect future of my company and my name in attached, I have to do this call, I am making an complaint about this chair on his integrity of moderate this list. Because this is the complaint about the APWG chair, RIPE chair is CCed in the list. I do not expect anything from this complaint other than good discussion about policy in the future in this list, no more personal attach, no more personal information leaked, no more false accusation on things not related to the policy. End of the day, it is policy will affect millions of internet users in Europe, middle East, Russian, we really should stop childish acting like who did what so why cannot I do. Be professional. With regards. Lu On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 10:33 AM, Gert Doering <gert@space.net<mailto:gert@space.net>> wrote: Hi, On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 11:24:27AM +0300, Elvis Daniel Velea wrote:
PS: Gert, I know I promised yesterday I will no longer reply back to attacks, but I had to reply to this one and ask Ciprian (one more time) to stop. Can you also do something about it?
As a matter of last resort, we might turn on moderation for the APWG list. I'm not really happy to even consider that, as it would hurt transparency and the flow of discussion ("if neither chair is around, things come to a stop", and "what are the criteria to block or pass a mail? will the chairs use this to influence the outcome of a discussion?") - but if this is not stopping RIGHT NOW, we'll have to. 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<tel:%2B49%20%280%2989%2F32356-444> USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 -- -- Kind regards. Lu This transmission is intended solely for the addressee(s) shown above. It may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. Any review, dissemination or use of this transmission or its contents by persons other than the intended addressee(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify this office immediately and e-mail the original at the sender's address above by replying to this message and including the text of the transmission received.
Hi Lu, and all others, you complain about personal attacks against you over the list on one hand and in the same breath you attack Gert personally ... Hope you're feeling better now, because I can't see any other possible result your post could have as purpose. All on the list, please stop all those flaming I had to read in the last couple of days. If you know about illegal activities, go to the appropriate authorities. Or maybe first follow the rules defined here: https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-613 And now please let us continue our businesses and stop attacking others. Thanks! Gert: although I am not always agreeing with what you think and say, I think you and Sander are doing a good job! BR Jens Am 11. Juni 2015 11:47:58 MESZ, schrieb Lu Heng <h.lu@anytimechinese.com>:
Hi Gert, and Chair, everyone here:
This Email is my thought on what happened in past years in the APWG.
[...]
Opteamax GmbH - RIPE-Team Jens Ott Opteamax GmbH Simrockstr. 4b 53619 Rheinbreitbach Tel.: +49 2224 969500 Fax: +49 2224 97691059 Email: jo@opteamax.de HRB: 23144, Amtsgericht Montabaur Umsatzsteuer-ID.: DE264133989
Hi I agree with you no more personal attack should happening any more. *And to be very clear, I am not attacking Gert personally.* *I am complaint about one of working group chair does not keep the level of integrity as it should.* It is fundamental difference, in personal level, I do like to be friend with Gert and he of course feel free to like or dislike me. However as APWG chair, I believe Chair should remain neutral on all ground but not judging things based on personal preference as well as personal emotions. Let's not dive to far from what should be happening here, policy discussion. With regards. Lu On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 12:52 PM, Opteamax GmbH <ripe@opteamax.de> wrote:
Hi Lu, and all others,
you complain about personal attacks against you over the list on one hand and in the same breath you attack Gert personally ... Hope you're feeling better now, because I can't see any other possible result your post could have as purpose.
All on the list, please stop all those flaming I had to read in the last couple of days. If you know about illegal activities, go to the appropriate authorities. Or maybe first follow the rules defined here:
https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-613
And now please let us continue our businesses and stop attacking others. Thanks!
Gert: although I am not always agreeing with what you think and say, I think you and Sander are doing a good job!
BR Jens
Am 11. Juni 2015 11:47:58 MESZ, schrieb Lu Heng <h.lu@anytimechinese.com>:
Hi Gert, and Chair, everyone here:
This Email is my thought on what happened in past years in the APWG.
[...]
Opteamax GmbH - RIPE-Team Jens Ott
Opteamax GmbH
Simrockstr. 4b 53619 Rheinbreitbach
Tel.: +49 2224 969500 Fax: +49 2224 97691059 Email: jo@opteamax.de
HRB: 23144, Amtsgericht Montabaur Umsatzsteuer-ID.: DE264133989
* Lu Heng <h.lu@anytimechinese.com> [2015-06-11 13:03]:
Hi
I agree with you no more personal attack should happening any more.
*And to be very clear, I am not attacking Gert personally.*
Yes you do. You're questioning his integrity.
*I am complaint about one of working group chair does not keep the level of integrity as it should.*
Gert is one of the few people I know that I trust completely regarding integrity. He proved me right again by letting Sander conclude this proposal so that neutrality is given.
It is fundamental difference, in personal level, I do like to be friend with Gert and he of course feel free to like or dislike me. However as APWG chair, I believe Chair should remain neutral on all ground but not judging things based on personal preference as well as personal emotions.
Noone can remain neutral on all grounds all the time. That is why he is not "judging" anything in this case. Sander is.
Let's not dive to far from what should be happening here, policy discussion.
Back at you. Sebastian -- GPG Key: 0x93A0B9CE (F4F6 B1A3 866B 26E9 450A 9D82 58A2 D94A 93A0 B9CE) 'Are you Death?' ... IT'S THE SCYTHE, ISN'T IT? PEOPLE ALWAYS NOTICE THE SCYTHE. -- Terry Pratchett, The Fifth Elephant
Hi On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 1:48 PM, Sebastian Wiesinger <sebastian@karotte.org> wrote:
* Lu Heng <h.lu@anytimechinese.com> [2015-06-11 13:03]:
Hi
I agree with you no more personal attack should happening any more.
*And to be very clear, I am not attacking Gert personally.*
Yes you do. You're questioning his integrity.
No, I am not questioning his integrity, I am questioning Chair of APWG's integrity, his integrity has nothing to do in this case, Chair of the APWG is not a person, it is a position in the community to moderate and manage the list. While I complaint about Chair of the APWG, why it has to become personal to Gert?
*I am complaint about one of working group chair does not keep the level of integrity as it should.*
Gert is one of the few people I know that I trust completely regarding integrity. He proved me right again by letting Sander conclude this proposal so that neutrality is given.
I was not talking about his neutrality of this proposal. I was talking about my personal information and company info getting posted in the list while the Chair conclude it has relevance to the policy discussion.
It is fundamental difference, in personal level, I do like to be friend with Gert and he of course feel free to like or dislike me. However as APWG chair, I believe Chair should remain neutral on all ground but not judging things based on personal preference as well as personal emotions.
Noone can remain neutral on all grounds all the time. That is why he is not "judging" anything in this case. Sander is.
No one can, personally, but while you are in a position, then you should. the person of you does not matter any more, rules apply to that position.
Let's not dive to far from what should be happening here, policy discussion.
Back at you.
Sebastian
-- GPG Key: 0x93A0B9CE (F4F6 B1A3 866B 26E9 450A 9D82 58A2 D94A 93A0 B9CE) 'Are you Death?' ... IT'S THE SCYTHE, ISN'T IT? PEOPLE ALWAYS NOTICE THE SCYTHE. -- Terry Pratchett, The Fifth Elephant
-- -- Kind regards. Lu This transmission is intended solely for the addressee(s) shown above. It may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. Any review, dissemination or use of this transmission or its contents by persons other than the intended addressee(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify this office immediately and e-mail the original at the sender's address above by replying to this message and including the text of the transmission received.
A chair is not a human, it is a thing :):):) 11.06.2015, 14:54, "Lu Heng" <h.lu@anytimechinese.com>:
Hi
On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 1:48 PM, Sebastian Wiesinger <sebastian@karotte.org> wrote:
* Lu Heng <h.lu@anytimechinese.com> [2015-06-11 13:03]:
Hi
I agree with you no more personal attack should happening any more.
*And to be very clear, I am not attacking Gert personally.*
Yes you do. You're questioning his integrity.
No, I am not questioning his integrity, I am questioning Chair of APWG's integrity, his integrity has nothing to do in this case, Chair of the APWG is not a person, it is a position in the community to moderate and manage the list. While I complaint about Chair of the APWG, why it has to become personal to Gert?
*I am complaint about one of working group chair does not keep the level of integrity as it should.*
Gert is one of the few people I know that I trust completely regarding integrity. He proved me right again by letting Sander conclude this proposal so that neutrality is given.
I was not talking about his neutrality of this proposal. I was talking about my personal information and company info getting posted in the list while the Chair conclude it has relevance to the policy discussion.
It is fundamental difference, in personal level, I do like to be friend with Gert and he of course feel free to like or dislike me. However as APWG chair, I believe Chair should remain neutral on all ground but not judging things based on personal preference as well as personal emotions.
Noone can remain neutral on all grounds all the time. That is why he is not "judging" anything in this case. Sander is.
No one can, personally, but while you are in a position, then you should. the person of you does not matter any more, rules apply to that position.
Let's not dive to far from what should be happening here, policy discussion.
Back at you.
Sebastian
-- GPG Key: 0x93A0B9CE (F4F6 B1A3 866B 26E9 450A 9D82 58A2 D94A 93A0 B9CE) 'Are you Death?' ... IT'S THE SCYTHE, ISN'T IT? PEOPLE ALWAYS NOTICE THE SCYTHE. -- Terry Pratchett, The Fifth Elephant
-- -- Kind regards. Lu
This transmission is intended solely for the addressee(s) shown above. It may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. Any review, dissemination or use of this transmission or its contents by persons other than the intended addressee(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify this office immediately and e-mail the original at the sender's address above by replying to this message and including the text of the transmission received.
-- Kind regards, Petr Umelov
A Chair is a position, the human sit on it should keep this integrity and hide his personal preference while making calls. Just like if you become a Judge, you are expected to judge things based on fact and reality, not on accusations without ground and personal emotions, you can not say I am going to sentence that guy for 10 years just because I don't like what he is doing. And while you are making mistaken judgement, people have rights to complaint to higher level to make things right. Same here, I feel some of the Chair's judgement was not fair, and I am making complaint about it, I feel in this free speech world, I have all my rights to do so. On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 2:00 PM, Petr Umelov <petr@fast-telecom.net> wrote:
A chair is not a human, it is a thing :):):)
Hi
On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 1:48 PM, Sebastian Wiesinger < sebastian@karotte.org> wrote:
* Lu Heng <h.lu@anytimechinese.com> [2015-06-11 13:03]:
Hi
I agree with you no more personal attack should happening any more.
*And to be very clear, I am not attacking Gert personally.*
Yes you do. You're questioning his integrity.
No, I am not questioning his integrity, I am questioning Chair of APWG's integrity, his integrity has nothing to do in this case, Chair of the APWG is not a person, it is a position in the community to moderate and manage
11.06.2015, 14:54, "Lu Heng" <h.lu@anytimechinese.com>: the list. While I complaint about Chair of the APWG, why it has to become personal to Gert?
*I am complaint about one of working group chair does not keep the
integrity as it should.*
Gert is one of the few people I know that I trust completely regarding integrity. He proved me right again by letting Sander conclude this proposal so that neutrality is given.
I was not talking about his neutrality of this proposal. I was talking about my personal information and company info getting posted in the list while the Chair conclude it has relevance to the policy discussion.
It is fundamental difference, in personal level, I do like to be friend with Gert and he of course feel free to like or dislike me. However as APWG chair, I believe Chair should remain neutral on all ground but not judging things based on personal preference as well as personal emotions.
Noone can remain neutral on all grounds all the time. That is why he is not "judging" anything in this case. Sander is.
No one can, personally, but while you are in a position, then you should. the person of you does not matter any more, rules apply to that
level of position.
Let's not dive to far from what should be happening here, policy
discussion.
Back at you.
Sebastian
-- GPG Key: 0x93A0B9CE (F4F6 B1A3 866B 26E9 450A 9D82 58A2 D94A 93A0 B9CE) 'Are you Death?' ... IT'S THE SCYTHE, ISN'T IT? PEOPLE ALWAYS NOTICE
THE SCYTHE.
-- Terry Pratchett, The Fifth Elephant
-- -- Kind regards. Lu
This transmission is intended solely for the addressee(s) shown above. It may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. Any review, dissemination or use of this transmission or its contents by persons other than the intended addressee(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify this office immediately and e-mail the original at the sender's address above by replying to this message and including the text of the transmission received.
-- Kind regards, Petr Umelov
-- -- Kind regards. Lu This transmission is intended solely for the addressee(s) shown above. It may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. Any review, dissemination or use of this transmission or its contents by persons other than the intended addressee(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify this office immediately and e-mail the original at the sender's address above by replying to this message and including the text of the transmission received.
Enough, i have no more choice than to unsubscribe, thanks to all participants, goodbye, the other option would be to generate a spam filter. From: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Lu Heng Sent: 11. kesäkuuta 2015 15:16 To: Petr Umelov Cc: address-policy-wg@ripe.net; chair@ripe.net Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] Complaint and future of the APWG. A Chair is a position, the human sit on it should keep this integrity and hide his personal preference while making calls. Just like if you become a Judge, you are expected to judge things based on fact and reality, not on accusations without ground and personal emotions, you can not say I am going to sentence that guy for 10 years just because I don't like what he is doing. And while you are making mistaken judgement, people have rights to complaint to higher level to make things right. Same here, I feel some of the Chair's judgement was not fair, and I am making complaint about it, I feel in this free speech world, I have all my rights to do so. On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 2:00 PM, Petr Umelov <petr@fast-telecom.net<mailto:petr@fast-telecom.net>> wrote: A chair is not a human, it is a thing :):):) 11.06.2015, 14:54, "Lu Heng" <h.lu@anytimechinese.com<mailto:h.lu@anytimechinese.com>>:
Hi
On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 1:48 PM, Sebastian Wiesinger <sebastian@karotte.org<mailto:sebastian@karotte.org>> wrote:
* Lu Heng <h.lu@anytimechinese.com<mailto:h.lu@anytimechinese.com>> [2015-06-11 13:03]:
Hi
I agree with you no more personal attack should happening any more.
*And to be very clear, I am not attacking Gert personally.*
Yes you do. You're questioning his integrity.
No, I am not questioning his integrity, I am questioning Chair of APWG's integrity, his integrity has nothing to do in this case, Chair of the APWG is not a person, it is a position in the community to moderate and manage the list. While I complaint about Chair of the APWG, why it has to become personal to Gert?
*I am complaint about one of working group chair does not keep the level of integrity as it should.*
Gert is one of the few people I know that I trust completely regarding integrity. He proved me right again by letting Sander conclude this proposal so that neutrality is given.
I was not talking about his neutrality of this proposal. I was talking about my personal information and company info getting posted in the list while the Chair conclude it has relevance to the policy discussion.
It is fundamental difference, in personal level, I do like to be friend with Gert and he of course feel free to like or dislike me. However as APWG chair, I believe Chair should remain neutral on all ground but not judging things based on personal preference as well as personal emotions.
Noone can remain neutral on all grounds all the time. That is why he is not "judging" anything in this case. Sander is.
No one can, personally, but while you are in a position, then you should. the person of you does not matter any more, rules apply to that position.
Let's not dive to far from what should be happening here, policy discussion.
Back at you.
Sebastian
-- GPG Key: 0x93A0B9CE (F4F6 B1A3 866B 26E9 450A 9D82 58A2 D94A 93A0 B9CE) 'Are you Death?' ... IT'S THE SCYTHE, ISN'T IT? PEOPLE ALWAYS NOTICE THE SCYTHE. -- Terry Pratchett, The Fifth Elephant
-- -- Kind regards. Lu
This transmission is intended solely for the addressee(s) shown above. It may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. Any review, dissemination or use of this transmission or its contents by persons other than the intended addressee(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify this office immediately and e-mail the original at the sender's address above by replying to this message and including the text of the transmission received. -- Kind regards, Petr Umelov
-- -- Kind regards. Lu This transmission is intended solely for the addressee(s) shown above. It may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. Any review, dissemination or use of this transmission or its contents by persons other than the intended addressee(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify this office immediately and e-mail the original at the sender's address above by replying to this message and including the text of the transmission received.
Enough, i have no more choice than to unsubscribe, thanks to all participants, goodbye, the other option would be to generate a spam filter. Raymond unsubscribing? I would welcome some intervention from the RIPE chair now , if only to reinforce how inadequately some of us are behaving. Dave
Hi, On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 12:29:15PM +0000, David Freedman wrote:
i have no more choice than to unsubscribe, thanks to all participants, goodbye, the other option would be to generate a spam filter.
Raymond unsubscribing?
Raymond, please do not!
I would welcome some intervention from the RIPE chair now , if only to reinforce how inadequately some of us are behaving.
I find it very complicated to intervene here, especially as Lu Heng is complaing about me - trying to stop this sort of posting can be easily interpreted as "trying to hide the truth", "stop free speech" or whatever. I *am* sorry if yesterday's heated discussions got me involved more than I should have been, wearing my neutrality hat (which is why I put it off, point taken). So, can we please leave it at that now, and return to interesting questions regarding policy proposals in an active phase, or the PDP itself, and not discussing personal gripes? Gert Doering -- speaking as myself -- 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
Hi Gert and rest of the list: I will stop posting and I believe all my points has been made. I will expect answer from WGCC and Chair of Ripe for the outcome of this appeal. Let's go back to the policy. (And apologised to anyone feel disturbed, because it was really not first time me and my company being put in the list, I have never responded but this time, I do feel I have to do something to stop being mentioned again and again as a bad guy in the community , for real, in past 7 years I was in the Ripe community, I did not post anything ever for my personal interest in the public list as well as speaking in the micphone in Ripe meeting, I tried my best to learn, and as one of very young people to the community, I even tried my best to bring more young people at their 20s to join the discussion) On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 2:49 PM, Gert Doering <gert@space.net> wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 12:29:15PM +0000, David Freedman wrote:
i have no more choice than to unsubscribe, thanks to all participants, goodbye, the other option would be to generate a spam filter.
Raymond unsubscribing?
Raymond, please do not!
I would welcome some intervention from the RIPE chair now , if only to reinforce how inadequately some of us are behaving.
I find it very complicated to intervene here, especially as Lu Heng is complaing about me - trying to stop this sort of posting can be easily interpreted as "trying to hide the truth", "stop free speech" or whatever.
I *am* sorry if yesterday's heated discussions got me involved more than I should have been, wearing my neutrality hat (which is why I put it off, point taken).
So, can we please leave it at that now, and return to interesting questions regarding policy proposals in an active phase, or the PDP itself, and not discussing personal gripes?
Gert Doering -- speaking as myself -- 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
-- -- Kind regards. Lu This transmission is intended solely for the addressee(s) shown above. It may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. Any review, dissemination or use of this transmission or its contents by persons other than the intended addressee(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify this office immediately and e-mail the original at the sender's address above by replying to this message and including the text of the transmission received.
On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 02:15:51PM +0200, Lu Heng wrote:
Same here, I feel some of the Chair's judgement was not fair, and I am making complaint about it, I feel in this free speech world, I have all my rights to do so.
According to s4 of ripe-642 this is the correct procedure to appeal a grievance in the PDP: 4. Appeals Procedure If a grievance cannot be resolved with the chair of the WG the matter can be brought to the attention of the Working Group Chairs Collective (WGCC). Anyone may submit an appeal. This must be submitted to the relevant WG mailing list(s) and to the Policy Announce Mailing List (policy-announce@ripe.net). The appeal will also be published by the RIPE NCC at appropriate locations on the RIPE web site. Any appeal should include a detailed and specific description of the issues and clearly explain why the appeal was submitted. An appeal must be submitted no later than four weeks after the appealable action has occurred. The WGCC will decide by consensus whether to uphold or reject appeals which have been submitted. The decision of the WGCC should be reached no later than four weeks of an appeal being made. Interested parties shall recuse themselves from any discussion or decision within the WGCC relating to the appeal. If the dispute cannot be resolved by the decision of the WGCC, the issue should be brought to the RIPE Chair. The decision of the RIPE Chair will be final. I guess we can consider the appeal made, leave it to the WGCC and stop debating the definition of a chair. rgds, Sascha Luck
Hi Sascha: Thanks for the link. Yes, please consider appeal has been made, and I will expect responds from WGCC and Chair of Ripe. Thanks. On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 2:31 PM, Sascha Luck [ml] <apwg@c4inet.net> wrote:
On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 02:15:51PM +0200, Lu Heng wrote:
Same here, I feel some of the Chair's judgement was not fair, and I am making complaint about it, I feel in this free speech world, I have all my rights to do so.
According to s4 of ripe-642 this is the correct procedure to appeal a grievance in the PDP:
4. Appeals Procedure
If a grievance cannot be resolved with the chair of the WG the matter can be brought to the attention of the Working Group Chairs Collective (WGCC). Anyone may submit an appeal. This must be submitted to the relevant WG mailing list(s) and to the Policy Announce Mailing List (policy-announce@ripe.net). The appeal will also be published by the RIPE NCC at appropriate locations on the RIPE web site. Any appeal should include a detailed and specific description of the issues and clearly explain why the appeal was submitted. An appeal must be submitted no later than four weeks after the appealable action has occurred. The WGCC will decide by consensus whether to uphold or reject appeals which have been submitted. The decision of the WGCC should be reached no later than four weeks of an appeal being made. Interested parties shall recuse themselves from any discussion or decision within the WGCC relating to the appeal.
If the dispute cannot be resolved by the decision of the WGCC, the issue should be brought to the RIPE Chair. The decision of the RIPE Chair will be final.
I guess we can consider the appeal made, leave it to the WGCC and stop debating the definition of a chair.
rgds, Sascha Luck
-- -- Kind regards. Lu This transmission is intended solely for the addressee(s) shown above. It may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. Any review, dissemination or use of this transmission or its contents by persons other than the intended addressee(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify this office immediately and e-mail the original at the sender's address above by replying to this message and including the text of the transmission received.
On 11 Jun 2015, at 12:53, Lu Heng <h.lu@anytimechinese.com> wrote:
No, I am not questioning his integrity,
So please stop banging on about this. [BTW you're very wrong because you *are* questioning someone's integrity, but let's not get into that any further.] This thread serves no useful purpose. Let's kill it and kill it now. PLEASE. Those who have been misbehaving and feel the need to apologise can do that privately, preferably in person. Those who have been misbehaving and do not feel the need to apologise should just shut up. Everyone else should resist the temptation to add more noise.
Hi On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 2:11 PM, Jim Reid <jim@rfc1035.com> wrote:
On 11 Jun 2015, at 12:53, Lu Heng <h.lu@anytimechinese.com> wrote:
No, I am not questioning his integrity,
So please stop banging on about this. [BTW you're very wrong because you *are* questioning someone's integrity, but let's not get into that any further.]
I did not see why I was very wrong while I feel some of the judgement of the Chair was not right. I think as community member, I have all my rights to question Chair's Integrity while I feel so.
This thread serves no useful purpose. Let's kill it and kill it now. PLEASE.
The purpose I have said in the first Email: I do not expect anything from this complaint other than good discussion about policy in the future in this list, no more personal attach, no more personal information leaked, no more false accusation on things not related to the policy. If you believe such purpose was not useful, I reserve my personal opinion.
Those who have been misbehaving and feel the need to apologise can do that privately, preferably in person. Those who have been misbehaving and do not feel the need to apologise should just shut up. Everyone else should resist the temptation to add more noise.
All I want is keep future of this list clear and smooth without future encouragement to personal attacks. Shut up does not solve the problem. -- -- Kind regards. Lu This transmission is intended solely for the addressee(s) shown above. It may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. Any review, dissemination or use of this transmission or its contents by persons other than the intended addressee(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify this office immediately and e-mail the original at the sender's address above by replying to this message and including the text of the transmission received.
Hi,
Gert is one of the few people I know that I trust completely regarding integrity. He proved me right again by letting Sander conclude this proposal so that neutrality is given.
Indeed. I am staying out of this discussion and I will limit myself to judging on consensus or not. I admit that I am very annoyed by what is happening on the list at the moment, but I will not let that influence my decision. That will be based on arguments for/against the proposal and how they are addressed. What we look for is support for the proposal and that the objections against the proposal have been properly considered. That doesn't mean that every objection blocks the proposal. Rough consensus only requires the objections to be taken seriously and be considered. I will let you know the outcome once I analyse every message from the review phase about this proposal on this mailing list. This might take a while... Please be a bit patient. Cheers, Sander
What we look for is support for the proposal and that the objections against the proposal have been properly considered.
how do you properly consider filibustering? the process is being DoSed. it is really sad to see. it is not mine to judge (it's yours); but through the DoS and ad homina, things seem pretty clear. randy
Hi randy: I agree with you it seems too obvious to not understand what is going on. But to my understanding how things works here, Chair can not declare consensus if there are still people disagree(and in this case, real or fake, many of them), however if such consensus is not declared this time, I am not seeing consensus on this will ever have a chance to be reached(for the obvious reason). So here is the puzzle. 在 2015年6月12日，上午10:01，Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> 写道：
What we look for is support for the proposal and that the objections against the proposal have been properly considered.
how do you properly consider filibustering? the process is being DoSed. it is really sad to see. it is not mine to judge (it's yours); but through the DoS and ad homina, things seem pretty clear.
randy
Chair can not declare consensus if there are still people disagree
i do not believe this is correct. you may find help in understanding the, admittedly culturally based, meaning of consensus in RFC 7282, https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7282 randy
Hi randy: I have read this, and I also know I might not as experience as you. Let me put it again: Chair can not declare consensus if there are still Many people disagree.(real or fake that's another topic). But we need to find ways to close the loop, just I didn't see this PDP process will likely to pass. 在 2015年6月12日，上午10:15，Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> 写道：
i do not believe this is correct. you may find help in understanding the, admittedly culturally based, meaning of consensus in RFC 7282, https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7282
randy
you may also find http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/raw-attachment/wiki/WGChairTraining... useful
I didn't see this PDP process will likely to pass.
from what i understand, discussion of this proposal has already closed. i was traveling, so came on a week of (so called) 'discussion' all at once. i did not learn much; it was mostly repetitive, much more noise and ad homina than actual facts or fact based arguments (in the constructive sense of 'argument'). there is an american idiom "it's all over but the shouting," http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/It's+all+over+but+the+shouting which sadly seems apt. randy
Hi, On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 10:10:37AM +0200, h.lu@anytimechinese.com wrote:
But to my understanding how things works here, Chair can not declare consensus if there are still people disagree
I can. And we have in the past. We prefer if people can be convinced to, at least, give up their objections after a good debate (or even support the common goal, or help shape the text into something that achieves the original goal but takes the issues raised into account). This does not always work out - sometimes, people will not agree, period. In that case, we have to balance supporting arguments, opposing arguments, and whether they have been answered properly. If the result of that is "the main argument brought up against the proposal is that it is actually doing what it is supposed to do" we can happily go forward. See also RFC 7282 - we do not hum, but the model described (especially for *rough* consensus, and a loud minority trying to disturb process) describes what we do quite well. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- 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
On 12 Jun 2015, at 09:10, h.lu@anytimechinese.com wrote:
But to my understanding how things works here, Chair can not declare consensus if there are still people disagree(and in this case, real or fake, many of them)
You're wrong. The generally accepted definition of consensus is lack of sustained, reasonable objection. This does not mean everyone has to agree: that's unanimity. A consensus determination does not mean there are no objections either. Some people may well disagree with a proposal. That does not give them a veto on the proposal and their objection(s) don't necessarily block the WG from reaching consensus. I suggest you read RFC7282. Although this documents how the IETF defines consensus, much of that applies to other similar organisations and communities such as RIPE.
Hi, On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 12:52:49PM +0200, Opteamax GmbH wrote:
Gert: although I am not always agreeing with what you think and say, I think you and Sander are doing a good job!
I certainly hope to spur a good discussion by having people *not* agree with me :-) - but thanks for the encouraging words. We do our best. Gert Doering -- 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
participants (14)
-
David Freedman -
Gert Doering -
h.lu＠anytimechinese.com -
Jetten Raymond -
Jim Reid -
Kennedy, James -
Lu Heng
-
Opteamax GmbH -
Petr Umelov -
Randy Bush -
Sander Steffann -
Sascha Luck [ml] -
Sebastian Wiesinger -
Tim Chown