Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Decision on Proposal 2017-02
Hi,
Op 14 mrt. 2018, om 15:22 heeft Name <phishing@storey.xxx> het volgende geschreven:
This does not address black hole email addresses, nor does it validate that an email address is an abuse email address. I could put YOUR email address as my abuse contact. Because your email address is valid, it would pass your check?
And then an individual would have to prove that an email address is not working at all, to complain to RIPE? But your email address does work?
How is it that you have spent how ever many months on this garbage, and come out with exactly the same position you were in before hand?
This proposal is a first step to catch low hanging fruit. Yes: there are many things that can (should) be improved, but getting consensus on these controversial topics is difficult. So the proposers are taking it one step at a time. Based on the discussion on this mailing list those steps apparently have to be very small, but at least there is the possibility of movement :) Cheers, Sander
On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 03:33:42PM +0100, Sander Steffann wrote:
This proposal is a first step to catch low hanging fruit. Yes: there are many things that can (should) be improved, but getting consensus on these controversial topics is difficult. So the proposers are taking it one step at a time. Based on the discussion on this mailing list those steps apparently have to be very small, but at least there is the possibility of movement :)
Correctly and perfectly summarised. A textbook example of early-stage frog-boiling. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_frog The road to oppressive and onerous regulation is taken a small step at a time in the 21st century and that's why it is important to resist such attempts NOW while it is possible to do so without great personal sacrifice. For the avoidance of doubt, the above constitutes (continuing) opposition to 2017-02. rgds, Sascha Luck
Sascha, Thank you for your input. Could you, during this phase, be a little clearer in regards to your reasons for objection. This is really a question for everyone contributing. For instance, what about the suggested implementation is onerous or oppressive? Thanks, Brian Co-Chair, RIPE AA-wG Brian Nisbet Network 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
-----Original Message----- From: anti-abuse-wg <anti-abuse-wg-bounces@ripe.net> On Behalf Of Sascha Luck [ml] Sent: Thursday 15 March 2018 17:04 To: anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Decision on Proposal 2017-02
On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 03:33:42PM +0100, Sander Steffann wrote:
This proposal is a first step to catch low hanging fruit. Yes: there are many things that can (should) be improved, but getting consensus on these controversial topics is difficult. So the proposers are taking it one step at a time. Based on the discussion on this mailing list those steps apparently have to be very small, but at least there is the possibility of movement :)
Correctly and perfectly summarised. A textbook example of early-stage frog- boiling. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_frog
The road to oppressive and onerous regulation is taken a small step at a time in the 21st century and that's why it is important to resist such attempts NOW while it is possible to do so without great personal sacrifice.
For the avoidance of doubt, the above constitutes (continuing) opposition to 2017-02.
rgds, Sascha Luck
Hi Brian, I take the opportunity to also respond to your question. I would prefer a more "real" test of the email, however agree with other comments that it is much better to move on with the actual policy proposal if we are able to reach consensus, and maybe improve it with new proposals in the future. Regards, Jordi -----Mensaje original----- De: anti-abuse-wg <anti-abuse-wg-bounces@ripe.net> en nombre de Brian Nisbet <brian.nisbet@heanet.ie> Fecha: jueves, 15 de marzo de 2018, 18:08 Para: "Sascha Luck [ml]" <aawg@c4inet.net>, "anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net" <anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net> Asunto: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Decision on Proposal 2017-02 Sascha, Thank you for your input. Could you, during this phase, be a little clearer in regards to your reasons for objection. This is really a question for everyone contributing. For instance, what about the suggested implementation is onerous or oppressive? Thanks, Brian Co-Chair, RIPE AA-wG Brian Nisbet Network 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 > -----Original Message----- > From: anti-abuse-wg <anti-abuse-wg-bounces@ripe.net> On Behalf Of > Sascha Luck [ml] > Sent: Thursday 15 March 2018 17:04 > To: anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net > Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Decision on Proposal 2017-02 > > On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 03:33:42PM +0100, Sander Steffann wrote: > >This proposal is a first step to catch low hanging fruit. Yes: there > >are many things that can (should) be improved, but getting consensus on > >these controversial topics is difficult. So the proposers are taking it > >one step at a time. Based on the discussion on this mailing list those > >steps apparently have to be very small, but at least there is the > >possibility of movement :) > > Correctly and perfectly summarised. A textbook example of early-stage frog- > boiling. > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_frog > > The road to oppressive and onerous regulation is taken a small step at a time > in the 21st century and that's why it is important to resist such attempts NOW > while it is possible to do so without great personal sacrifice. > > For the avoidance of doubt, the above constitutes (continuing) opposition to > 2017-02. > > rgds, > Sascha Luck > ********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.consulintel.es 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.
On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 05:08:29PM +0000, Brian Nisbet wrote:
For instance, what about the suggested implementation is onerous or oppressive?
Nothing, and I didn't state that it was. The problem is that, once accepted, the implementation is out of the hands of this community or indeed everyone bar the NCC Board. They can make it as onerous and oppressive as they want. Furthermore, from the general tenor of this discussion I can't help assuming that 2017-02 won't be the end of it and I have to take this into account when considering the (de)merits of 2017-02. Also one point I raised remains so far entirely unaddressed - why does a proposal and its implementation plan prescribe the use of email (in 2018!) for contact information? rgds, Sascha Luck
-----Original Message----- From: anti-abuse-wg <anti-abuse-wg-bounces@ripe.net> On Behalf Of Sascha Luck [ml] Sent: Thursday 15 March 2018 17:04 To: anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Decision on Proposal 2017-02
On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 03:33:42PM +0100, Sander Steffann wrote:
This proposal is a first step to catch low hanging fruit. Yes: there are many things that can (should) be improved, but getting consensus on these controversial topics is difficult. So the proposers are taking it one step at a time. Based on the discussion on this mailing list those steps apparently have to be very small, but at least there is the possibility of movement :)
Correctly and perfectly summarised. A textbook example of early-stage frog- boiling. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_frog
The road to oppressive and onerous regulation is taken a small step at a time in the 21st century and that's why it is important to resist such attempts NOW while it is possible to do so without great personal sacrifice.
For the avoidance of doubt, the above constitutes (continuing) opposition to 2017-02.
rgds, Sascha Luck
On Thu, 15 Mar 2018 18:44:44 +0000 "Sascha Luck [ml]" <aawg@c4inet.net> wrote:
On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 05:08:29PM +0000, Brian Nisbet wrote:
For instance, what about the suggested implementation is onerous or oppressive? Nothing, and I didn't state that it was. The problem is that, once accepted, the implementation is out of the hands of this community or indeed everyone bar the NCC Board. They can make it as onerous and oppressive as they want.
within the implementation. (wherein there is nothing onerous or oppressive - as all seem to agree...)
Furthermore, from the general tenor of this discussion I can't help assuming that 2017-02 won't be the end of it and I have to take this into account when considering the (de)merits of 2017-02.
to object because you may object in the future to something unspecified or unknown is the same as just objecting for the sake of objecting.
Also one point I raised remains so far entirely unaddressed - why does a proposal and its implementation plan prescribe the use of email (in 2018!) for contact information?
because everyone has email. not everyone has telegram, whatsup, insertnameofyourcommshere or simply 'trusts' all java(script)/apps from wherever... Regards Andre
-----Original Message----- From: Sascha Luck [ml] <aawg@c4inet.net> Sent: Thursday 15 March 2018 18:45 To: Brian Nisbet <brian.nisbet@heanet.ie> Cc: anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Decision on Proposal 2017-02
On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 05:08:29PM +0000, Brian Nisbet wrote:
For instance, what about the suggested implementation is onerous or oppressive?
Nothing, and I didn't state that it was. The problem is that, once accepted, the implementation is out of the hands of this community or indeed everyone bar the NCC Board. They can make it as onerous and oppressive as they want.
Ah, ok, my apologies. So, because I'd like to be clear here, you are objecting to this proposal on the basis of something that may or may not happen in the future?
Furthermore, from the general tenor of this discussion I can't help assuming that 2017-02 won't be the end of it and I have to take this into account when considering the (de)merits of 2017-02.
Ok, but do you have any issues with 2017-02 as written, bearing in mind what Marco and myself have already said about the policies around non-adherence to RIPE policies?
Also one point I raised remains so far entirely unaddressed - why does a proposal and its implementation plan prescribe the use of email (in 2018!) for contact information?
As always, if you wish to propose something that involves other media, please do. But at present, this is the medium in use. Thanks, Brian Co-Chair, RIPE AA-WG
-----Original Message----- From: anti-abuse-wg <anti-abuse-wg-bounces@ripe.net> On Behalf Of Sascha Luck [ml] Sent: Thursday 15 March 2018 17:04 To: anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Decision on Proposal 2017-02
On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 03:33:42PM +0100, Sander Steffann wrote:
This proposal is a first step to catch low hanging fruit. Yes: there are many things that can (should) be improved, but getting consensus on these controversial topics is difficult. So the proposers are taking it one step at a time. Based on the discussion on this mailing list those steps apparently have to be very small, but at least there is the possibility of movement :)
Correctly and perfectly summarised. A textbook example of early-stage frog- boiling. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_frog
The road to oppressive and onerous regulation is taken a small step at a time in the 21st century and that's why it is important to resist such attempts NOW while it is possible to do so without great personal sacrifice.
For the avoidance of doubt, the above constitutes (continuing) opposition to 2017-02.
rgds, Sascha Luck
On 16/03/2018 08:59, Brian Nisbet wrote:
Nothing, and I didn't state that it was. The problem is that, once accepted, the implementation is out of the hands of this community or indeed everyone bar the NCC Board. They can make it as onerous and oppressive as they want. Ah, ok, my apologies. So, because I'd like to be clear here, you are objecting to this proposal on the basis of something that may or may not happen in the future?
Brian, As a matter of principle I must object to that as a completely unfair mischaracterisation of what Sascha just said. To object to a proposal "on the basis of something that may or may not happen in the future" makes it sound speculative, and thus unreasonable. To object to a proposal on the basis that it *authorises* something undesirable to happen is perfectly reasonable; such an objection is on the basis that the measure before us would transfer the decision as to whether that thing should happen from us to (in this case) the NCC. That's something that is happening now, not something in the future. You may disagree with Sascha as to whether 2017-02 does in fact authorise the NCC to do something undesirable, but it's not fair to rule out his concerns merely because the supposedly undesirable outcome is only authorised rather than required. I think it really important that we recognise that when authorising the NCC to act, it is a legitimate objection to say that we wouldn't want them to exercise that authority in a particular way, and the scope of what is authorised ought to be limited in some way. I am far more concerned about that as a principle than I am about the outcome for this proposal in particular. Kind Regards, Malcolm. -- Malcolm Hutty | tel: +44 20 7645 3523 Head of Public Affairs | Read the LINX Public Affairs blog London Internet Exchange | http://publicaffairs.linx.net/ London Internet Exchange Ltd Monument Place, 24 Monument Street London EC3R 8AJ Company Registered in England No. 3137929 Trinity Court, Trinity Street, Peterborough PE1 1DA
Malcolm (and, indeed, Sascha), I did not intent to be flippant in my answer. I apologise that it came across in that way. It was meant as a genuine attempt to gain better understanding of the basis for the objection, not an attempt to dismiss or mischaracterise, although I can understand that it came across in that way. I believe the points that Marco and I have made still stand in regards to the possible outcome of not adhering to this policy and whether that is a change or a valid reason for objection. Thank, Brian Co-Chair, RIPE AA-WG Brian Nisbet Network 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
-----Original Message----- From: Malcolm Hutty <malcolm@linx.net> Sent: Friday 16 March 2018 09:28 To: Brian Nisbet <brian.nisbet@heanet.ie>; anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Decision on Proposal 2017-02
On 16/03/2018 08:59, Brian Nisbet wrote:
Nothing, and I didn't state that it was. The problem is that, once accepted, the implementation is out of the hands of this community or indeed everyone bar the NCC Board. They can make it as onerous and oppressive as they want. Ah, ok, my apologies. So, because I'd like to be clear here, you are objecting to this proposal on the basis of something that may or may not happen in the future?
Brian,
As a matter of principle I must object to that as a completely unfair mischaracterisation of what Sascha just said.
To object to a proposal "on the basis of something that may or may not happen in the future" makes it sound speculative, and thus unreasonable.
To object to a proposal on the basis that it *authorises* something undesirable to happen is perfectly reasonable; such an objection is on the basis that the measure before us would transfer the decision as to whether that thing should happen from us to (in this case) the NCC. That's something that is happening now, not something in the future.
You may disagree with Sascha as to whether 2017-02 does in fact authorise the NCC to do something undesirable, but it's not fair to rule out his concerns merely because the supposedly undesirable outcome is only authorised rather than required.
I think it really important that we recognise that when authorising the NCC to act, it is a legitimate objection to say that we wouldn't want them to exercise that authority in a particular way, and the scope of what is authorised ought to be limited in some way. I am far more concerned about that as a principle than I am about the outcome for this proposal in particular.
Kind Regards,
Malcolm.
-- Malcolm Hutty | tel: +44 20 7645 3523 Head of Public Affairs | Read the LINX Public Affairs blog London Internet Exchange | http://publicaffairs.linx.net/
London Internet Exchange Ltd Monument Place, 24 Monument Street London EC3R 8AJ
Company Registered in England No. 3137929 Trinity Court, Trinity Street, Peterborough PE1 1DA
On Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 08:59:55AM +0000, Brian Nisbet wrote:
Ah, ok, my apologies. So, because I'd like to be clear here, you are objecting to this proposal on the basis of something that may or may not happen in the future?
If you want to be uncharitable, yes. However, this is the *last* point at which it is even *possible* for me to object to what I see as a dangerous slippy slope.
Ok, but do you have any issues with 2017-02 as written, bearing in mind what Marco and myself have already said about the policies around non-adherence to RIPE policies?
Yes, it adds another thing to an already long list of things that can trigger a monopoly provider to deny service to its (involuntary) customers. If you're determined to manufacture consensus by declaring an entire class of objections, to whit: medium to long term consequences of such a proposal, out of bounds; there is not much I can do. The record will show I've made my stand and history shall judge. rgds, Sascha Luck
Also one point I raised remains so far entirely unaddressed - why does a proposal and its implementation plan prescribe the use of email (in 2018!) for contact information?
As always, if you wish to propose something that involves other media, please do. But at present, this is the medium in use.
Thanks,
Brian Co-Chair, RIPE AA-WG
-----Original Message----- From: anti-abuse-wg <anti-abuse-wg-bounces@ripe.net> On Behalf Of Sascha Luck [ml] Sent: Thursday 15 March 2018 17:04 To: anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Decision on Proposal 2017-02
On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 03:33:42PM +0100, Sander Steffann wrote:
This proposal is a first step to catch low hanging fruit. Yes: there are many things that can (should) be improved, but getting consensus on these controversial topics is difficult. So the proposers are taking it one step at a time. Based on the discussion on this mailing list those steps apparently have to be very small, but at least there is the possibility of movement :)
Correctly and perfectly summarised. A textbook example of early-stage frog- boiling. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_frog
The road to oppressive and onerous regulation is taken a small step at a time in the 21st century and that's why it is important to resist such attempts NOW while it is possible to do so without great personal sacrifice.
For the avoidance of doubt, the above constitutes (continuing) opposition to 2017-02.
rgds, Sascha Luck
On Fri, 16 Mar 2018 14:48:38 +0000 "Sascha Luck [ml]" <aawg@c4inet.net> wrote:
On Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 08:59:55AM +0000, Brian Nisbet wrote:
Ah, ok, my apologies. So, because I'd like to be clear here, you are objecting to this proposal on the basis of something that may or may not happen in the future?
If you want to be uncharitable, yes. However, this is the *last* point at which it is even *possible* for me to object to what I see as a dangerous slippy slope.
actually, no. There are two things in your original statement which are being conveniently ignored. (1) You agreed that nothing about the suggested implementation was either onerous or oppressive. You then added that once it is accepted then the NCC board may implement it as they wish. In fact, you said: "They can make it as onerous and oppressive as they want." This statement is simply ignoring that the NCC board is implementing that which you have already stated is neither onerous or oppressive. (2) You then pointed out the "General Tenor" of this discussion and then stated that 2017-02 will not be the end of it, I presume the same "slippery slope" you are referring to above. So, it is not so uncharitable to point out that you are objecting to something that may or may not happen in the future. It is this point (2) of yours that is your real objection and that objection is simply an objection because you can object.
Ok, but do you have any issues with 2017-02 as written, bearing in mind what Marco and myself have already said about the policies around non-adherence to RIPE policies?
Yes, it adds another thing to an already long list of things that can trigger a monopoly provider to deny service to its (involuntary) customers.
You conveniently neglect to mention that the resources that these "customers" have - belongs to everyone - and not to the "customers" In truth, they are not customers at all, but all/everyone are "custodians" of public resources.
If you're determined to manufacture consensus by declaring an entire class of objections, to whit: medium to long term consequences of such a proposal, out of bounds; there is not much I can do. The record will show I've made my stand and history shall judge.
there is no manufactured consensus, I doubt if ever all the cats in this herd have all agreed on anything. and the cat herder has simply declared the obvious, that there is a general consensus. Regards Andre
participants (7)
-
Brian Nisbet -
JORDI PALET MARTINEZ -
Malcolm Hutty -
Name -
ox -
Sander Steffann -
Sascha Luck [ml]