Is it possible to move a motion to rename this working group from Anti
Abuse WG to "The promotion of abuse working group"?
Because this entire working group is a farce.
On 12/11/2020 11:31 pm, Angela Dall'Ara wrote:
> Dear Jordi,
>
>
> The WGCC task, as defined in Section 4 of the PDP, is it to determine
> “whether to uphold or reject appeals”.
> In addition to that, in this first occurrence of an appeal being
> submitted, they chose to provide an extended explanation to you and
> the community,
> which is strictly speaking not necessary and is not part of the
> appeals process.
>
> However, I would like to convey here below the answers to your
> requests for clarification about the WGCC appeal outcome communication.
>
> I suggest we close this appeal, unless you decide to escalate to the
> RIPE Chair within the next two weeks.
> Should you have any more question, please contact me directly and I
> will be glad to assist.
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Angela Dall'Ara
> RIPE NCC Policy Officer
>
>
> Summary
> =======
>
> The WGCC does not find sufficient reason to overturn the ruling of
> the Anti-Abuse WG chairs on proposal 2019-04 (Validation of
> "abuse-mailbox").
>
> If Jordi wishes to bring a new proposal that he thinks may achieve
> consensus, we note that 2019-04 was being considered during an
> unusual
> time, when we have not had face-to-face meetings due to the COVID-19
> pandemic. So it faced difficulties not normally facing a policy
> proposal. As always, the Anti-Abuse WG chairs may decide not to adopt
> any new proposal.
>
> [Jordi] Could you clarify this paragraph; I can't parse it.
>
> [Answer]: It basically says that you or anyone else may decide to
> submit a
> new proposal and that it has been recognised that these are unusual
> times due to COVID-19.
>
> Scope
> =====
>
> The WGCC considers the appeal process to be solely to determine if
> the
> working group chairs made a reasonable declaration of consensus or
> lack of consensus.
>
> The appeal process is able review whether the process was
> followed, or
> whether there was bias shown in the declaration.
>
> The appeal process will not re-visit any of the points for or against
> the proposal.
>
> [Jordi] Following the PDP, I can't agree with this. Can you clarify?
>
> [Answer]: During an appeal, the WGCC determine whether the process has
> been
> followed or not. They do not need to review content of the discussion
> related to the proposal.
>
>
> Discussion During the Review Phase
> ----------------------------------
>
> The need to re-state opinions was explicitly mentioned in the e-mail
> moving the policy proposal to the review phase. It is unfortunate
> that
> the importance of this was not clear to Jordi. Possibly in the future
> this can be highlighted in some way.
>
> [Jordi] This is against the PDP. The chairs can even say I must sing a
> song, but the only valid process is the one CLEARLY STATED in the PDP.
> Nothing else. Otherwise there is a clear subjectivity in the process
> which invalidates it.
>
> [Answer]: Exactly. And the PDP does not require the WG Chairs to do
> anything
> during the Review Phase. The explicit invite to re-state opinions
> was an extra service.
>
>
> New Policy Proposal
> -------------------
>
> In principle there is nothing to prevent Jordi or anyone else from
> submitting an updated version of 2019-04. However, in the Address
> Policy working group having submitted an unsuccessful policy proposal
> did prejudice the working group against accepting other submissions.
> So there is some possible concern that an updated version would
> have a
> more difficult time.
>
> There are many factors to balance when deciding what proposals to
> accept, and the work of balancing them is up to the working group
> chairs. So we do _not_ explicitly request that the Anti-Abuse working
> group chairs adopt any subsequent policy proposals. We _do_ ask that
> they give extra consideration to the unusual circumstances that we
> are
> attempting to make policies in.
>
> We do not have any recommendation to Jordi whether he or anyone else
> should submit an updated version of 2019-04.
>
> [Jordi] I can't parse this. It looks contradictory. Previous text seems
> that is ok to the co-chairs to reject a new version, but here it is
> clearly stated that anyone can do it? Are we talking about a new version
> of the same proposal or a new proposal?
>
> [Answer]: It means it is up to you (or anyone else) to consider
> submitting a
> NEW proposal. And it is up to the WG chairs of the respective WG to
> accept such a new proposal or not.
>
>
>
>
> Appeal discussion
> -----------------
>
> [Jordi] 3 co-chairs have recused themselves. Is that meaning that all
> the discussion has been done in a different mailing list apart from
> the WGCC ?
>
> [Answer]: The discussion has been done on Zoom meetings, not on the
> WGCC mailing list.
>
>
>
>
> On 26/10/2020 09:50, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via anti-abuse-wg wrote:
>> There is also another point that I will like to rise and I just
>> noticed, and this is very relevant not just because this appeal, but
>> because the appeal process itself.
>>
>> 3 co-chairs have recused themselves. Is that meaning that all the
>> discussion has been done in a different mailing list apart from the
>> WGCC ? This is an extremely important point for the neutrality of the
>> process.
>>
>> There were other WG co-chairs that, during the proposal discussion,
>> expressed their inputs on this proposal (never mind was in favor,
>> against or neutral). It should be expected that also those co-chairs
>> didn't participate in the appeal.
>>
>> I also expected that the co-chairs of the anti-abuse WG should have
>> taken the same self-recuse position, in order to show a real
>> neutrality/impartiality in the process.
>>
>> All this is clearly showing a lack of impartial appeal process.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Jordi
>> @jordipalet
>>
>> El 26/10/20 9:40, "anti-abuse-wg en nombre de JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
>> via anti-abuse-wg"
<anti-abuse-wg-bounces@ripe.net en nombre de
>>
anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net> escribió:
>>
>> Hi Mirjam,
>>
>> See my responses below, in-line as many clarifications are
>> clearly required, not just because this appeal, but because there is
>> a misjudgment of the PDP itself.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Jordi
>> @jordipalet
>>
>>
>>
>> El 26/10/20 9:07,
"Mirjam Kuehne" <mir@zu-hause.nl> escribió:
>>
>> Dear Jordi,
>>
>> Regarding the appeal you submitted on 5 October to the RIPE
>> Anti-Abuse
>> Working Group mailing list, I would like to inform you about
>> the
>> decision of the RIPE Working Group Chairs Collective
>> (according to the
>> procedure as defined in ripe-710).
>>
>> [Jordi] I don't think the PDP has been followed in full for this
>> appeal. For example, there was not announcement of the publication of
>> the appeal in the web site.
>>
>> The WG Chairs Collective (WGCC) decided to uphold the
>> decision of the
>> Co-Chairs of the Anti-Abuse Working Group. Please find below
>> their
>> detailed response.
>>
>> Kind regards,
>> Mirjam Kühne
>> RIPE Chair
>> ========
>>
>>
>> Summary
>> =======
>>
>> The WGCC does not find sufficient reason to overturn the
>> ruling of
>> the Anti-Abuse WG chairs on proposal 2019-04 (Validation of
>> "abuse-mailbox").
>>
>> If Jordi wishes to bring a new proposal that he thinks may
>> achieve
>> consensus, we note that 2019-04 was being considered during
>> an unusual
>> time, when we have not had face-to-face meetings due to the
>> COVID-19
>> pandemic. So it faced difficulties not normally facing a policy
>> proposal. As always, the Anti-Abuse WG chairs may decide not
>> to adopt
>> any new proposal.
>>
>> [Jordi] Could you clarify this paragraph; I can't parse it.
>>
>> Scope
>> =====
>>
>> The WGCC considers the appeal process to be solely to
>> determine if the
>> working group chairs made a reasonable declaration of
>> consensus or
>> lack of consensus.
>>
>> The appeal process is able review whether the process was
>> followed, or
>> whether there was bias shown in the declaration.
>>
>> The appeal process will not re-visit any of the points for
>> or against
>> the proposal.
>>
>> [Jordi] Following the PDP, I can't agree with this. Can you
>> clarify?
>>
>> Discussion
>> ==========
>>
>> The appeal submitted includes several points that the WGCC
>> found
>> important to consider. These are discussed here. Points
>> outside of the
>> scope of the appeal process are omitted.
>>
>>
>> RIPE NCC Impact Analysis
>> ------------------------
>>
>> The appeal will not review the accuracy of the RIPE NCC impact
>> analysis. The WGCC defers to the expertise of the RIPE NCC
>> staff who
>> performed the analysis and the members of the Anti-Abuse WG who
>> received the analysis.
>>
>> Further, an impact analysis is information intended to be
>> helpful to
>> decide whether to adopt a policy. The RIPE community is free
>> to assign
>> whatever weight it wishes.
>>
>> [Jordi] However, according to this, the co-chairs should also
>> consider that the justification provided by the author against the
>> objections is clearly demonstrating that the analysis impact is wrong
>> in certain aspects, so those objections can't be accepted as valid.
>>
>> Discussion During the Review Phase
>> ----------------------------------
>>
>> The need to re-state opinions was explicitly mentioned in
>> the e-mail
>> moving the policy proposal to the review phase. It is
>> unfortunate that
>> the importance of this was not clear to Jordi. Possibly in
>> the future
>> this can be highlighted in some way.
>>
>> [Jordi] This is against the PDP. The chairs can even say I must
>> sing a song, but the only valid process is the one CLEARLY STATED in
>> the PDP. Nothing else. Otherwise there is a clear subjectivity in the
>> process which invalidates it.
>>
>>
>> Timing of Consensus Declaration
>> -------------------------------
>>
>> Jordi mentions several possible changes to the policy
>> proposal which
>> may have led to consensus. He suggests that the declaration of
>> consensus was made too soon.
>>
>> We recognize that this is a bit of an odd time, due to
>> COVID-19. This
>> has removed one of our valuable tools, the face-to-face
>> meetings. The
>> already-tricky job of the working group chairs in the PDP
>> has been
>> made harder.
>>
>> We rely on the chairs of the WG involved to decide whether
>> or not a
>> proposal is likely to ever reach consensus. There are no
>> guidelines
>> given for this decision.
>>
>> We find that the Anti-Abuse WG chairs were reasonable in the
>> timing of
>> declaring that there is no consensus.
>>
>>
>> Specific Points in Conclusion
>> -----------------------------
>>
>> The conclusion states:
>>
>> 1. It is not acceptable to declare lack of consensus and at
>> the same
>> time recognize that there was “some clear support for
>> the policy
>> during the Discussion Phase”.
>>
>> This is not true. Having support for a policy does not
>> _necessarily_
>> mean there is consensus.
>>
>> [Jordi] Exactly the same that declaring no-consensus based on
>> justifications that have been refuted by the author, is not acceptable.
>>
>> 2. It is not acceptable to, due to the lack of messages in
>> the Review
>> Phase, instead of extending it, considering the summer
>> vacations
>> period, declare lack of consensus.
>>
>> We find the judgment of the Anti-Abuse WG chairs to be
>> reasonable in
>> not extending the Review Phase.
>>
>> [Jordi] Based on what? Because this is even clearly against the
>> text of the co-chairs decision. You also are recognizing across the
>> text that the circumstances during the Covid are special, so how come
>> then it should be acceptable not to extend the review phase
>> considering the lack of responses, and the summer period in addition
>> to the Covid itself?
>>
>> 3. It is not acceptable to accept repeated objections as
>> valid when
>> have been already refuted in a previous phase.
>>
>> The consensus declaration should defer to the community and
>> what they
>> consider valid. It appears to have done so in this case.
>>
>> [Jordi] Once more, lack of consensus can't be determined based
>> on objections which are invalid as they have been reasonably refuted
>> by the author and even other community members.
>>
>> 4. It is not acceptable to, considering the PDP (“The PDP is
>> designed
>> so that compromises can be made and genuine consensus
>> achieved”),
>> subjectively decide that “regardless of possible edits,
>> reaching
>> consensus in the short or medium term”, when there are
>> possible
>> ways to address the objections, which have anyway
>> already being
>> addressed.
>>
>> We find the judgment of the Anti-Abuse WG chairs to be
>> reasonable in
>> declaring a lack of consensus.
>>
>>
>> [Jordi] This is unacceptable. If the discussion shows that
>> changes to the proposal can bring a new version which may achieve
>> consensus, then it should be allowed. We know that different
>> proposals have taken different time and different number of versions
>> to achieve consensus, so such decision about if a proposal can reach
>> or not consensus, can't be based on a subjective decision.
>>
>>
>> New Policy Proposal
>> -------------------
>>
>> In principle there is nothing to prevent Jordi or anyone
>> else from
>> submitting an updated version of 2019-04. However, in the
>> Address
>> Policy working group having submitted an unsuccessful policy
>> proposal
>> did prejudice the working group against accepting other
>> submissions.
>> So there is some possible concern that an updated version
>> would have a
>> more difficult time.
>>
>> There are many factors to balance when deciding what
>> proposals to
>> accept, and the work of balancing them is up to the working
>> group
>> chairs. So we do _not_ explicitly request that the
>> Anti-Abuse working
>> group chairs adopt any subsequent policy proposals. We _do_
>> ask that
>> they give extra consideration to the unusual circumstances
>> that we are
>> attempting to make policies in.
>>
>> We do not have any recommendation to Jordi whether he or
>> anyone else
>> should submit an updated version of 2019-04.
>>
>> [Jordi] I can't parse this. It looks contradictory. Previous
>> text seems that is ok to the co-chairs to reject a new version, but
>> here it is clearly stated that anyone can do it? Are we talking about
>> a new version of the same proposal or a new proposal?
>>
>> Working Group Chairs Excluded
>> ==============================
>>
>> The working group chairs of the Anti-Abuse working group
>> were not part
>> of the discussions regarding the appeal.
>>
>> A number of other working group chairs recused themselves
>> from the
>> appeal. These were:
>>
>> * Erik Bais
>> * Gert Doering
>> * Denis Walker
>>
>> In addition, Mirjam Kühne and Niall O'Reilly recused
>> themselves from
>> discussion and writing of the appeal.
>>
>>
>> Recommendation to All RIPE WG Chairs
>> ====================================
>>
>> We recommend that all RIPE WG Chairs provide extra help for
>> all policy
>> proposals while we are struggling to deal with lack of
>> face-to-face
>> contact. The form of this help will vary depending on the
>> proposal.
>> The rest of the WGCC is available to discuss any topics
>> related to
>> this if any WG chairs want additional feedback or ideas.
>>
>> This advice does not strictly fall within the scope of the
>> appeal, but
>> the appeal brought the issue to the attention of the WGCC.
>> We consider
>> it important to mention here.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> **********************************************
>> IPv4 is over
>> Are you ready for the new Internet ?
>>
http://www.theipv6company.com>> The IPv6 Company
>>
>> This electronic message contains information which may be
>> privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the
>> exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further
>> non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of
>> the contents of this information, even if partially, including
>> attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a
>> criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that
>> any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this
>> information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly
>> prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply
>> to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> **********************************************
>> IPv4 is over
>> Are you ready for the new Internet ?
>>
http://www.theipv6company.com>> The IPv6 Company
>>
>> This electronic message contains information which may be privileged
>> or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive
>> use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty
>> authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents
>> of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is
>> strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you
>> are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying,
>> distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if
>> partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be
>> considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original
>> sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>