=============================================================================
* Forwarded by Alex Barinov (2:5020/715.1)
* Area : regcon.eur (regcon.eur)
* From : Ward Dossche, 2:292/854 (12 Jan 07 00:52)
* To   : All
* Subj : 2:5004/9
=============================================================================
Today I restored "manu militari" the node 2:5004/9 in the
R50-segment and am freezing said segment until co-operation can be
accomplished so that this node's right to an appeal at ZC-level and maybe
beyond is not thwarted anymore.

Take care,

 \%/{at}rd Dossche
     ZC/2

-+- D'Bridge 2.64
 + Origin: Many Glacier -o=O=o- Preserve - Protect - Conserve (2:292/854)
=============================================================================

  Hello, All!

This story began when I reviewed decision of N2:5004C and excommunicated
node 2:5004/9. He has been dropped from the nodelist, but Aleksandr decide
to appeal to Z2C. Ward said that 2:5004/9 should be returned to the
nodelist until he working under appeal. I didn't return 2:5004/9 to the
nodelist because there is no Z2C's decision on appeal on my table. It is
common practice in R2:50 when excommunicated sysop makes appeal from any
point address and returns in the nodelist only when term of his/her
excommunication elapsed or if *C structure satisfied his/her appeal. My
question is how Ward's instruction conform with FPD? RC have right to
excommunicate sysop due to 2.1.12, 9.1 FPD and 9.5 never said about
returning of excommunicated sysop to the nodelist until working under
his/her appeal in progress. Also in the past Ward never demand to return
excommunicated sysops in the nodelist for working under his/her appeals.

I prefer to got answer on this question from Malcolm.

E-Mail: bav{at}sirena2000.ru ICQ: 24466689 Skype: huba-huba
--- GoldED+/LNX 1.1.4.7