Periodic Reminder: List Conduct
Colleagues, It seems that at some point in every large list discussion I am compelled to send a mail of this type. This is not in response to any single mail, rather it is a reminder to all. Please remember to conduct yourselves well on this list, to discuss the matter at hand and not to attack the person writing the email. Most of the list discussion takes place in the appropriate manner, but I realise that when we're discussing matters about which any of us are passionate we can forget this. Ad hominem attacks, general slights, unfounded accusations, and many other things do not contribute to the list discussion. The Co-Chairs can't tell you not to send them by private mail (albeit we'd greatly prefer you didn't) nor to act in this manner in other for a (albeit we'd prefer if you didn't do that either), but we can tell you not to do it here, so please don't. Thank you all for your interest and passion for this subject. Brian Co-Chair, RIPE AA-WG Brian Nisbet Service Operations Manager HEAnet CLG, Ireland's National Education and Research Network 1st Floor, 5 George's Dock, IFSC, Dublin D01 X8N7, Ireland +35316609040 brian.nisbet@heanet.ie www.heanet.ie Registered in Ireland, No. 275301. CRA No. 20036270
but we can tell you not to do it here, so please don't.
Well... no, i disagree. Brian Nisbet, i would like to remind you, that ... You are not the Internet Police. In fact, what you consider to be a rule, might not be something that every single person on this planet also considers to be a rule, and so therefore, we have no rules at all, nor is there any basis for you to impose any rules on this list such as that which you have said. To enforce this rule of "no personal attacks", would require you to open you email and read it once every year. That is too much for RIPE to envisage. It's too much resources. It's something that no administrator such as you SHOULD HAVE TO DO. So therefore, let us discuss, in meaningless circular fashion, similar to what you find inside an insane asylum, this idea of yours. SOUND FAMILIAR, ANYONE? --------- Original Message --------- Subject: [anti-abuse-wg] Periodic Reminder: List Conduct From: "Brian Nisbet" <brian.nisbet@heanet.ie> Date: 1/17/20 8:23 pm To: "anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net" <anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net> Colleagues, It seems that at some point in every large list discussion I am compelled to send a mail of this type. This is not in response to any single mail, rather it is a reminder to all. Please remember to conduct yourselves well on this list, to discuss the matter at hand and not to attack the person writing the email. Most of the list discussion takes place in the appropriate manner, but I realise that when we're discussing matters about which any of us are passionate we can forget this. Ad hominem attacks, general slights, unfounded accusations, and many other things do not contribute to the list discussion. The Co-Chairs can't tell you not to send them by private mail (albeit we'd greatly prefer you didn't) nor to act in this manner in other for a (albeit we'd prefer if you didn't do that either), but we can tell you not to do it here, so please don't. Thank you all for your interest and passion for this subject. Brian Co-Chair, RIPE AA-WG Brian Nisbet Service Operations Manager HEAnet CLG, Ireland's National Education and Research Network 1st Floor, 5 George's Dock, IFSC, Dublin D01 X8N7, Ireland +35316609040 brian.nisbet@heanet.ie www.heanet.ie Registered in Ireland, No. 275301. CRA No. 20036270
Honestly, you can disagree all you want, but there are rules of conduct in the RIPE community and on this list. My email served as a polite reminder of those rules. If a member of the list chooses not to follow them, then steps will be taken in regards to direct communication, then moderation of postings if it is felt necessary and on from there. The Co-Chairs would greatly prefer not to have to deal with any of this, nor impose any restrictions on engagement with the working group, but if we must, we must, because such attacks do not help the list discussion nor the policy development process. Thanks, Brian Co-Chair, RIPE AA-WG Brian Nisbet Service Operations Manager HEAnet CLG, Ireland's National Education and Research Network 1st Floor, 5 George's Dock, IFSC, Dublin D01 X8N7, Ireland +35316609040 brian.nisbet@heanet.ie www.heanet.ie Registered in Ireland, No. 275301. CRA No. 20036270 From: anti-abuse-wg <anti-abuse-wg-bounces@ripe.net> On Behalf Of Fi Shing Sent: Friday 17 January 2020 11:33 To: anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Periodic Reminder: List Conduct
but we can tell you not to do it here, so please don't.
Well... no, i disagree. Brian Nisbet, i would like to remind you, that ... You are not the Internet Police. In fact, what you consider to be a rule, might not be something that every single person on this planet also considers to be a rule, and so therefore, we have no rules at all, nor is there any basis for you to impose any rules on this list such as that which you have said. To enforce this rule of "no personal attacks", would require you to open you email and read it once every year. That is too much for RIPE to envisage. It's too much resources. It's something that no administrator such as you SHOULD HAVE TO DO. So therefore, let us discuss, in meaningless circular fashion, similar to what you find inside an insane asylum, this idea of yours. SOUND FAMILIAR, ANYONE? --------- Original Message --------- Subject: [anti-abuse-wg] Periodic Reminder: List Conduct From: "Brian Nisbet" <brian.nisbet@heanet.ie<mailto:brian.nisbet@heanet.ie>> Date: 1/17/20 8:23 pm To: "anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net<mailto:anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net>" <anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net<mailto:anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net>> Colleagues, It seems that at some point in every large list discussion I am compelled to send a mail of this type. This is not in response to any single mail, rather it is a reminder to all. Please remember to conduct yourselves well on this list, to discuss the matter at hand and not to attack the person writing the email. Most of the list discussion takes place in the appropriate manner, but I realise that when we're discussing matters about which any of us are passionate we can forget this. Ad hominem attacks, general slights, unfounded accusations, and many other things do not contribute to the list discussion. The Co-Chairs can't tell you not to send them by private mail (albeit we'd greatly prefer you didn't) nor to act in this manner in other for a (albeit we'd prefer if you didn't do that either), but we can tell you not to do it here, so please don't. Thank you all for your interest and passion for this subject. Brian Co-Chair, RIPE AA-WG Brian Nisbet Service Operations Manager HEAnet CLG, Ireland's National Education and Research Network 1st Floor, 5 George's Dock, IFSC, Dublin D01 X8N7, Ireland +35316609040 brian.nisbet@heanet.ie<mailto:brian.nisbet@heanet.ie> www.heanet.ie<http://www.heanet.ie> Registered in Ireland, No. 275301. CRA No. 20036270
It appears you missed the point of my email. How can you say rules apply to this list, but not RIPE itself? Given the logic of many on this list: + You are not the internet police, + Some people may not agree with a rule, so therefore there are no rules at all, + you, as an administrator enforcing this rule of "no personal attacks" would require you to open your emails, which is too much to ask of you as an administrator. --------- Original Message --------- Subject: RE: [anti-abuse-wg] Periodic Reminder: List Conduct From: "Brian Nisbet" <brian.nisbet@heanet.ie> Date: 1/17/20 10:42 pm To: "Fi Shing" <phishing@storey.xxx>, "anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net" <anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net> Honestly, you can disagree all you want, but there are rules of conduct in the RIPE community and on this list. My email served as a polite reminder of those rules. If a member of the list chooses not to follow them, then steps will be taken in regards to direct communication, then moderation of postings if it is felt necessary and on from there. The Co-Chairs would greatly prefer not to have to deal with any of this, nor impose any restrictions on engagement with the working group, but if we must, we must, because such attacks do not help the list discussion nor the policy development process. Thanks, Brian Co-Chair, RIPE AA-WG Brian Nisbet Service Operations Manager HEAnet CLG, Ireland's National Education and Research Network 1st Floor, 5 George's Dock, IFSC, Dublin D01 X8N7, Ireland +35316609040 brian.nisbet@heanet.ie www.heanet.ie Registered in Ireland, No. 275301. CRA No. 20036270 From: anti-abuse-wg <anti-abuse-wg-bounces@ripe.net> On Behalf Of Fi Shing Sent: Friday 17 January 2020 11:33 To: anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Periodic Reminder: List Conduct
but we can tell you not to do it here, so please don't.
Well... no, i disagree. Brian Nisbet, i would like to remind you, that ... You are not the Internet Police. In fact, what you consider to be a rule, might not be something that every single person on this planet also considers to be a rule, and so therefore, we have no rules at all, nor is there any basis for you to impose any rules on this list such as that which you have said. To enforce this rule of "no personal attacks", would require you to open you email and read it once every year. That is too much for RIPE to envisage. It's too much resources. It's something that no administrator such as you SHOULD HAVE TO DO. So therefore, let us discuss, in meaningless circular fashion, similar to what you find inside an insane asylum, this idea of yours. SOUND FAMILIAR, ANYONE? --------- Original Message --------- Subject: [anti-abuse-wg] Periodic Reminder: List Conduct From: "Brian Nisbet" <brian.nisbet@heanet.ie> Date: 1/17/20 8:23 pm To: "anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net" <anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net> Colleagues, It seems that at some point in every large list discussion I am compelled to send a mail of this type. This is not in response to any single mail, rather it is a reminder to all. Please remember to conduct yourselves well on this list, to discuss the matter at hand and not to attack the person writing the email. Most of the list discussion takes place in the appropriate manner, but I realise that when we're discussing matters about which any of us are passionate we can forget this. Ad hominem attacks, general slights, unfounded accusations, and many other things do not contribute to the list discussion. The Co-Chairs can't tell you not to send them by private mail (albeit we'd greatly prefer you didn't) nor to act in this manner in other for a (albeit we'd prefer if you didn't do that either), but we can tell you not to do it here, so please don't. Thank you all for your interest and passion for this subject. Brian Co-Chair, RIPE AA-WG Brian Nisbet Service Operations Manager HEAnet CLG, Ireland's National Education and Research Network 1st Floor, 5 George's Dock, IFSC, Dublin D01 X8N7, Ireland +35316609040 brian.nisbet@heanet.ie www.heanet.ie Registered in Ireland, No. 275301. CRA No. 20036270
On Sat, 18 Jan 2020 at 08:21, Fi Shing <phishing@storey.xxx> wrote:
Some people may not agree with a rule, so therefore there are no rules at all,
Even if your friend/employer told you not to smoke on *their* premises...(?) Whenever you particpate in a community, or are with friends and/or family. There will always exists, at bare minimum, an unwritten code-of-conduct. Certain behaviour/words will, not always, be accept. Never forget that(!) (Similar to how you signed an agreement, when the state you live in issued you a password in your own name.) Even if rules are not acknowledged by EVERYONE. If you participate in the "community" (as defined within the scope of RIPE NCC, and amongst others, the mailing lists hosted by them), you SHOULD always behave in a way that is accepted as the consencus code-of-conduct by the majority. Or accept whatever repurcussions will follow, if the displayed behaviour is not accepted by the majority in any/the community. Chriztoffer
Brian and the other co-chairs have never claimed to be the internet police, however they are the co-chairs of this group. I don’t agree with every bit of legislation, but that does not mean that the laws are not binding on me Arguing that simply because you do not agree with a rule that it shouldn’t apply to you is farcical. Put more simply, if you want to participate in RIPE Community discussions you need to abide by the rules. If you don’t want to respect the rules then you can’t participate. -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting, Colocation & Domains https://www.blacknight.com https://blacknight.blog / http://ceo.hosting/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow, R93 X265 ,Ireland Company No.: 370845 From: anti-abuse-wg <anti-abuse-wg-bounces@ripe.net> on behalf of Fi Shing <phishing@storey.xxx> Date: Saturday 18 January 2020 at 07:23 To: "anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net" <anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net> Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Periodic Reminder: List Conduct It appears you missed the point of my email. How can you say rules apply to this list, but not RIPE itself? Given the logic of many on this list: 1. You are not the internet police, 2. Some people may not agree with a rule, so therefore there are no rules at all, 3. you, as an administrator enforcing this rule of "no personal attacks" would require you to open your emails, which is too much to ask of you as an administrator. --------- Original Message --------- Subject: RE: [anti-abuse-wg] Periodic Reminder: List Conduct From: "Brian Nisbet" <brian.nisbet@heanet.ie> Date: 1/17/20 10:42 pm To: "Fi Shing" <phishing@storey.xxx>, "anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net" <anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net> Honestly, you can disagree all you want, but there are rules of conduct in the RIPE community and on this list. My email served as a polite reminder of those rules. If a member of the list chooses not to follow them, then steps will be taken in regards to direct communication, then moderation of postings if it is felt necessary and on from there. The Co-Chairs would greatly prefer not to have to deal with any of this, nor impose any restrictions on engagement with the working group, but if we must, we must, because such attacks do not help the list discussion nor the policy development process. Thanks, Brian Co-Chair, RIPE AA-WG Brian Nisbet Service Operations Manager HEAnet CLG, Ireland's National Education and Research Network 1st Floor, 5 George's Dock, IFSC, Dublin D01 X8N7, Ireland +35316609040 brian.nisbet@heanet.ie www.heanet.ie Registered in Ireland, No. 275301. CRA No. 20036270 From: anti-abuse-wg <anti-abuse-wg-bounces@ripe.net> On Behalf Of Fi Shing Sent: Friday 17 January 2020 11:33 To: anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Periodic Reminder: List Conduct
but we can tell you not to do it here, so please don't.
Well... no, i disagree. Brian Nisbet, i would like to remind you, that ... You are not the Internet Police. In fact, what you consider to be a rule, might not be something that every single person on this planet also considers to be a rule, and so therefore, we have no rules at all, nor is there any basis for you to impose any rules on this list such as that which you have said. To enforce this rule of "no personal attacks", would require you to open you email and read it once every year. That is too much for RIPE to envisage. It's too much resources. It's something that no administrator such as you SHOULD HAVE TO DO. So therefore, let us discuss, in meaningless circular fashion, similar to what you find inside an insane asylum, this idea of yours. SOUND FAMILIAR, ANYONE? --------- Original Message --------- Subject: [anti-abuse-wg] Periodic Reminder: List Conduct From: "Brian Nisbet" <brian.nisbet@heanet.ie<mailto:brian.nisbet@heanet.ie>> Date: 1/17/20 8:23 pm To: "anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net<mailto:anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net>" <anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net<mailto:anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net>> Colleagues, It seems that at some point in every large list discussion I am compelled to send a mail of this type. This is not in response to any single mail, rather it is a reminder to all. Please remember to conduct yourselves well on this list, to discuss the matter at hand and not to attack the person writing the email. Most of the list discussion takes place in the appropriate manner, but I realise that when we're discussing matters about which any of us are passionate we can forget this. Ad hominem attacks, general slights, unfounded accusations, and many other things do not contribute to the list discussion. The Co-Chairs can't tell you not to send them by private mail (albeit we'd greatly prefer you didn't) nor to act in this manner in other for a (albeit we'd prefer if you didn't do that either), but we can tell you not to do it here, so please don't. Thank you all for your interest and passion for this subject. Brian Co-Chair, RIPE AA-WG Brian Nisbet Service Operations Manager HEAnet CLG, Ireland's National Education and Research Network 1st Floor, 5 George's Dock, IFSC, Dublin D01 X8N7, Ireland +35316609040 brian.nisbet@heanet.ie<mailto:brian.nisbet@heanet.ie> www.heanet.ie<http://www.heanet.ie> Registered in Ireland, No. 275301. CRA No. 20036270
Because they are two completely different things. This is the RIPE Community, of which the RIPE NCC are the secretariat, amongst other things. The rules of conduct for this list and the wider community have nothing to do with the database, nor abuse verification nor any notion of Internet Police. And honestly, you can attempt to find loopholes or argue nonsensical points of logic on this as much as you want. The point remains that there is a code of conduct and I am reminding everyone of it. Thank you, Brian Co-Chair, RIPE AA-WG Brian Nisbet Service Operations Manager HEAnet CLG, Ireland's National Education and Research Network 1st Floor, 5 George's Dock, IFSC, Dublin D01 X8N7, Ireland +35316609040 brian.nisbet@heanet.ie www.heanet.ie Registered in Ireland, No. 275301. CRA No. 20036270 From: anti-abuse-wg <anti-abuse-wg-bounces@ripe.net> On Behalf Of Fi Shing Sent: Saturday 18 January 2020 07:22 To: anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Periodic Reminder: List Conduct It appears you missed the point of my email. How can you say rules apply to this list, but not RIPE itself? Given the logic of many on this list: 1. You are not the internet police, 2. Some people may not agree with a rule, so therefore there are no rules at all, 3. you, as an administrator enforcing this rule of "no personal attacks" would require you to open your emails, which is too much to ask of you as an administrator. --------- Original Message --------- Subject: RE: [anti-abuse-wg] Periodic Reminder: List Conduct From: "Brian Nisbet" <brian.nisbet@heanet.ie<mailto:brian.nisbet@heanet.ie>> Date: 1/17/20 10:42 pm To: "Fi Shing" <phishing@storey.xxx<mailto:phishing@storey.xxx>>, "anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net<mailto:anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net>" <anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net<mailto:anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net>> Honestly, you can disagree all you want, but there are rules of conduct in the RIPE community and on this list. My email served as a polite reminder of those rules. If a member of the list chooses not to follow them, then steps will be taken in regards to direct communication, then moderation of postings if it is felt necessary and on from there. The Co-Chairs would greatly prefer not to have to deal with any of this, nor impose any restrictions on engagement with the working group, but if we must, we must, because such attacks do not help the list discussion nor the policy development process. Thanks, Brian Co-Chair, RIPE AA-WG Brian Nisbet Service Operations Manager HEAnet CLG, Ireland's National Education and Research Network 1st Floor, 5 George's Dock, IFSC, Dublin D01 X8N7, Ireland +35316609040 brian.nisbet@heanet.ie<mailto:brian.nisbet@heanet.ie> www.heanet.ie<http://www.heanet.ie> Registered in Ireland, No. 275301. CRA No. 20036270 From: anti-abuse-wg <anti-abuse-wg-bounces@ripe.net<mailto:anti-abuse-wg-bounces@ripe.net>> On Behalf Of Fi Shing Sent: Friday 17 January 2020 11:33 To: anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net<mailto:anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net> Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Periodic Reminder: List Conduct
but we can tell you not to do it here, so please don't.
Well... no, i disagree. Brian Nisbet, i would like to remind you, that ... You are not the Internet Police. In fact, what you consider to be a rule, might not be something that every single person on this planet also considers to be a rule, and so therefore, we have no rules at all, nor is there any basis for you to impose any rules on this list such as that which you have said. To enforce this rule of "no personal attacks", would require you to open you email and read it once every year. That is too much for RIPE to envisage. It's too much resources. It's something that no administrator such as you SHOULD HAVE TO DO. So therefore, let us discuss, in meaningless circular fashion, similar to what you find inside an insane asylum, this idea of yours. SOUND FAMILIAR, ANYONE? --------- Original Message --------- Subject: [anti-abuse-wg] Periodic Reminder: List Conduct From: "Brian Nisbet" <brian.nisbet@heanet.ie<mailto:brian.nisbet@heanet.ie>> Date: 1/17/20 8:23 pm To: "anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net<mailto:anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net>" <anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net<mailto:anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net>> Colleagues, It seems that at some point in every large list discussion I am compelled to send a mail of this type. This is not in response to any single mail, rather it is a reminder to all. Please remember to conduct yourselves well on this list, to discuss the matter at hand and not to attack the person writing the email. Most of the list discussion takes place in the appropriate manner, but I realise that when we're discussing matters about which any of us are passionate we can forget this. Ad hominem attacks, general slights, unfounded accusations, and many other things do not contribute to the list discussion. The Co-Chairs can't tell you not to send them by private mail (albeit we'd greatly prefer you didn't) nor to act in this manner in other for a (albeit we'd prefer if you didn't do that either), but we can tell you not to do it here, so please don't. Thank you all for your interest and passion for this subject. Brian Co-Chair, RIPE AA-WG Brian Nisbet Service Operations Manager HEAnet CLG, Ireland's National Education and Research Network 1st Floor, 5 George's Dock, IFSC, Dublin D01 X8N7, Ireland +35316609040 brian.nisbet@heanet.ie<mailto:brian.nisbet@heanet.ie> www.heanet.ie<https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.heanet.ie&data=02%7C01%7Cbrian.nisbet%40heanet.ie%7C74912bdebb1d4c451b8108d79be7375a%7Ccd9e8269dfb648e082538b7baf8d3391%7C0%7C0%7C637149289680139915&sdata=sWCPcy9Q8GEtVr9E1%2BSKTSM7YKP2igN5MpX9mWBEa5k%3D&reserved=0> Registered in Ireland, No. 275301. CRA No. 20036270
The point remains that there is a code of conduct and I am reminding everyone of it.
Great. Now if we can take this ^ ^ ^ and apply it to RIPE as a whole, then this group might be 50% of the way towards actually being an anti-abuse working group. Otherwise, someone should move a motion on this group that the group be renamed to : "Anti-Anti-abuse Working Group" --------- Original Message --------- Subject: RE: [anti-abuse-wg] Periodic Reminder: List Conduct From: "Brian Nisbet" <brian.nisbet@heanet.ie> Date: 1/20/20 8:19 pm To: "Fi Shing" <phishing@storey.xxx>, "anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net" <anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net> Because they are two completely different things. This is the RIPE Community, of which the RIPE NCC are the secretariat, amongst other things. The rules of conduct for this list and the wider community have nothing to do with the database, nor abuse verification nor any notion of Internet Police. And honestly, you can attempt to find loopholes or argue nonsensical points of logic on this as much as you want. The point remains that there is a code of conduct and I am reminding everyone of it. Thank you, Brian Co-Chair, RIPE AA-WG Brian Nisbet Service Operations Manager HEAnet CLG, Ireland's National Education and Research Network 1st Floor, 5 George's Dock, IFSC, Dublin D01 X8N7, Ireland +35316609040 brian.nisbet@heanet.ie www.heanet.ie Registered in Ireland, No. 275301. CRA No. 20036270 From: anti-abuse-wg <anti-abuse-wg-bounces@ripe.net> On Behalf Of Fi Shing Sent: Saturday 18 January 2020 07:22 To: anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Periodic Reminder: List Conduct It appears you missed the point of my email. How can you say rules apply to this list, but not RIPE itself? Given the logic of many on this list: You are not the internet police, Some people may not agree with a rule, so therefore there are no rules at all, you, as an administrator enforcing this rule of "no personal attacks" would require you to open your emails, which is too much to ask of you as an administrator. --------- Original Message --------- Subject: RE: [anti-abuse-wg] Periodic Reminder: List Conduct From: "Brian Nisbet" <brian.nisbet@heanet.ie> Date: 1/17/20 10:42 pm To: "Fi Shing" <phishing@storey.xxx>, "anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net" <anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net> Honestly, you can disagree all you want, but there are rules of conduct in the RIPE community and on this list. My email served as a polite reminder of those rules. If a member of the list chooses not to follow them, then steps will be taken in regards to direct communication, then moderation of postings if it is felt necessary and on from there. The Co-Chairs would greatly prefer not to have to deal with any of this, nor impose any restrictions on engagement with the working group, but if we must, we must, because such attacks do not help the list discussion nor the policy development process. Thanks, Brian Co-Chair, RIPE AA-WG Brian Nisbet Service Operations Manager HEAnet CLG, Ireland's National Education and Research Network 1st Floor, 5 George's Dock, IFSC, Dublin D01 X8N7, Ireland +35316609040 brian.nisbet@heanet.ie www.heanet.ie Registered in Ireland, No. 275301. CRA No. 20036270 From: anti-abuse-wg <anti-abuse-wg-bounces@ripe.net> On Behalf Of Fi Shing Sent: Friday 17 January 2020 11:33 To: anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Periodic Reminder: List Conduct
but we can tell you not to do it here, so please don't.
Well... no, i disagree. Brian Nisbet, i would like to remind you, that ... You are not the Internet Police. In fact, what you consider to be a rule, might not be something that every single person on this planet also considers to be a rule, and so therefore, we have no rules at all, nor is there any basis for you to impose any rules on this list such as that which you have said. To enforce this rule of "no personal attacks", would require you to open you email and read it once every year. That is too much for RIPE to envisage. It's too much resources. It's something that no administrator such as you SHOULD HAVE TO DO. So therefore, let us discuss, in meaningless circular fashion, similar to what you find inside an insane asylum, this idea of yours. SOUND FAMILIAR, ANYONE? --------- Original Message --------- Subject: [anti-abuse-wg] Periodic Reminder: List Conduct From: "Brian Nisbet" <brian.nisbet@heanet.ie> Date: 1/17/20 8:23 pm To: "anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net" <anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net> Colleagues, It seems that at some point in every large list discussion I am compelled to send a mail of this type. This is not in response to any single mail, rather it is a reminder to all. Please remember to conduct yourselves well on this list, to discuss the matter at hand and not to attack the person writing the email. Most of the list discussion takes place in the appropriate manner, but I realise that when we're discussing matters about which any of us are passionate we can forget this. Ad hominem attacks, general slights, unfounded accusations, and many other things do not contribute to the list discussion. The Co-Chairs can't tell you not to send them by private mail (albeit we'd greatly prefer you didn't) nor to act in this manner in other for a (albeit we'd prefer if you didn't do that either), but we can tell you not to do it here, so please don't. Thank you all for your interest and passion for this subject. Brian Co-Chair, RIPE AA-WG Brian Nisbet Service Operations Manager HEAnet CLG, Ireland's National Education and Research Network 1st Floor, 5 George's Dock, IFSC, Dublin D01 X8N7, Ireland +35316609040 brian.nisbet@heanet.ie www.heanet.ie Registered in Ireland, No. 275301. CRA No. 20036270
Good evening! I understand perfectly the concerns of those colleagues who actually want to promote a better responsible behaviour and ensure the resources allocated to the LIR-s are not abused or there is an effective mechanism to stop abuse. However, as the chair kindly pointed, RIPE policy development follows certain rules: https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-710 which in first part of the document clearly states: "Conclusions are reached by consensus." According to Oxford Dictionary, consensus means an opinion that all members of a group agree with. I standby my previous comment: the community (of RIPE) has grown encompassing legitimate business but also abusers who have become part of that community. Given the previous two points, it is rather clear that we have, in effect, lost the control. KR, -- Tõnu Tammer CERT-EE juht / Executive Director of CERT-EE Riigi Infosüsteemi Amet / Estonian Information System Authority Email: tonu@cert.ee Mobile: +372 53 284 054 Web: https://cert.ee PGP:0x77A8997 / 9477 6B86 6A1E 849B C456 46D6 9CA8 9E41 77A8 997B
Tõnu Tammer via anti-abuse-wg wrote on 20/01/2020 15:10:
According to Oxford Dictionary, consensus means an opinion that all members of a group agree with.
generally speaking, internet related groups use the rfc7282 approach to determining consensus. https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7282 Nick
Hi, On Mon, Jan 20, 2020 at 05:10:46PM +0200, Tõnu Tammer via anti-abuse-wg wrote:
However, as the chair kindly pointed, RIPE policy development follows certain rules: https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-710 which in first part of the document clearly states: "Conclusions are reached by consensus." According to Oxford Dictionary, consensus means an opinion that all members of a group agree with.
Actually we operate on "rough consensus", so the result does not have to be unanimous agremeent. What it needs to have is - "some vague feeling of 'sufficient'" people support a proposal - opposing arguments are "sufficiently" addressed This can be, indeed, very hard to judge depending on the nature of the proposal and the opposing arguments. But, in other words, if you have a single person jumping up and down and stamping their feet "I DO NOT WANT THIS!! NEVAR!" this is *not* sufficient to block a proposal - unless said person has strong actual arguments that are not sufficiently addressed by the proposers.
I standby my previous comment: the community (of RIPE) has grown encompassing legitimate business but also abusers who have become part of that community.
Since I am opposing the proposal on the table, this statement seems to make me an "abuser". Right? Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- 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
Hi,
I understand perfectly the concerns of those colleagues who actually want to promote a better responsible behaviour and ensure the resources allocated to the LIR-s are not abused or there is an effective mechanism to stop abuse. However, as the chair kindly pointed, RIPE policy development follows certain rules: https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-710 which in first part of the document clearly states: "Conclusions are reached by consensus." According to Oxford Dictionary, consensus means an opinion that all members of a group agree with.
It's "rough consensus", and it is all about the arguments. 1000 people supporting something doesn't imply rough consensus, and neither does a single person make or break rough consensus. It's the arguments that count, not the number of people expressing them.
I standby my previous comment: the community (of RIPE) has grown encompassing legitimate business but also abusers who have become part of that community.
Abusing the process would be to ignore or distort other people's arguments. Anybody who is debating arguments for or against a proposal is a perfectly valid participant.
Given the previous two points, it is rather clear that we have, in effect, lost the control.
Only if you don't keep track of each other's arguments and respect that not everybody has the same ideas :) Sander
participants (8)
-
Brian Nisbet -
Chriztoffer Hansen -
Fi Shing -
Gert Doering -
Michele Neylon - Blacknight -
Nick Hilliard -
Sander Steffann -
Tõnu Tammer