2013-01 Discussion Period extended until 26 June 2013 (Openness about Policy Violations)
Dear Colleagues, The text of the policy proposal 2013-01, "Openness about Policy Violations", has been revised based on the community feedback received on the mailing list. We have published the new version (version 2.0) today. As a result a new Discussion Phase is set for the proposal. The main changes in the new version are: -rewording of the second part of the Abstract -rewording of the section 1.0 -new section 2.0 and consequent renumbering of the other sections -rewording of the "Arguments opposing the proposal" in the Rationale You can find the full proposal at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2013-01 We encourage you to review this policy proposal and send your comments to <anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net>. Regards, Emilio Madaio Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC
Colleagues, There has been very little discussion on the below and there is just under a week remaining in the discussion phase. So, now is your time to talk about it! Brian Co-Chair, AA-WG Emilio Madaio wrote, On 29/05/2013 14:15:
Dear Colleagues,
The text of the policy proposal 2013-01, "Openness about Policy Violations", has been revised based on the community feedback received on the mailing list. We have published the new version (version 2.0) today. As a result a new Discussion Phase is set for the proposal.
The main changes in the new version are:
-rewording of the second part of the Abstract
-rewording of the section 1.0
-new section 2.0 and consequent renumbering of the other sections
-rewording of the "Arguments opposing the proposal" in the Rationale
You can find the full proposal at:
https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2013-01
We encourage you to review this policy proposal and send your comments to <anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net>.
Regards,
Emilio Madaio Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC
On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 05:53:07PM +0100, Brian Nisbet wrote:
There has been very little discussion on the below and there is just under a week remaining in the discussion phase. So, now is your time to talk about it!
you asked for it. The policy text needs a copy edit - "publicly published" is confusingly confusing.
-rewording of the section 1.0
I believe this part makes sense, except that It doesn't clearly state that the resolution time ought to be part of the statistics, as well. I'm not convinced that we need a policy for this, though.
-new section 2.0 and consequent renumbering of the other sections
This part is worrying. First because it defers details to the implementation and second because it suggests to give the reporting party unconditional access to an unspecified level of detail. What's the legitimate interest of the reporting party in monitoring the progress? What level of detail is envisioned? Without that being specified (and available for review) I do not support the progress of this proposal. -Peter
Hi Peter,
There has been very little discussion on the below and there is just under a week remaining in the discussion phase. So, now is your time to talk about it!
you asked for it. The policy text needs a copy edit - "publicly published" is confusingly confusing.
:-)
-rewording of the section 1.0
I believe this part makes sense, except that It doesn't clearly state that the resolution time ought to be part of the statistics, as well.
+1
I'm not convinced that we need a policy for this, though.
Usually I would agree with you and keep operational stuff out of policy-land, but in this case I think having a community-defined policy on openness / stats about how the NCC is handling violations of the policies *we* defined is better.
-new section 2.0 and consequent renumbering of the other sections
This part is worrying. First because it defers details to the implementation and second because it suggests to give the reporting party unconditional access to an unspecified level of detail.
Can you suggest text for where the limits should be? I would personally agree to a very limited level of detail, but I agree that this is nog clear in the current proposal text.
What's the legitimate interest of the reporting party in monitoring the progress?
In the current situation reporting parties don't see anything, which gives the feeling that all such reports disappear into a black hole. If we want to keep (or restore) community involvement in the care-taking of our shared resources then showing those that care enough to report problems that we (community+NCC) take their input seriously is important. We need to provide some feedback for this. I certainly don't mean to show all the (potentially confidential) detail of how the report is handled. Maybe an appropriate list of progress states can be defined?
What level of detail is envisioned? Without that being specified (and available for review) I do not support the progress of this proposal.
Please provide text. Thanks, Sander
Hi Sander,
Usually I would agree with you and keep operational stuff out of policy-land, but in this case I think having a community-defined policy on openness / stats about how the NCC is handling violations of the policies *we* defined is better.
just to be clear: piggybacking this on a broader proposal seems sensible to me, for a standalone it's too much process IMHO.
-new section 2.0 and consequent renumbering of the other sections
This part is worrying. First because it defers details to the implementation and second because it suggests to give the reporting party unconditional access to an unspecified level of detail.
Can you suggest text for where the limits should be? I would personally agree to a very limited level of detail, but I agree that this is nog clear in the current proposal text.
I have a hard time proposing text because despite my own potential curiosity or potential role as a stakeholder (probably in the legal sense of the word), I do not believe that there's a good case to treat the reporter special. A ticket number that is mapped to 'in progress' or 'closed' would likely be sufficient.
What's the legitimate interest of the reporting party in monitoring the progress?
In the current situation reporting parties don't see anything, which gives the feeling that all such reports disappear into a black hole. If we want
We've heard it being seen this way. And while (see above), I personally might have some sympathy for that frustration, I do not see the disclosure of investigation details as a cure.
to keep (or restore) community involvement in the care-taking of our shared resources then showing those that care enough to report problems that we (community+NCC) take their input seriously is important. We need to provide
So, we delegated the day to day care taking to the NCC and hat's where the details belong. If anybody cares enough they will check the status of a particular object and either see a change or not. If there's no change (yet), the ticket status will show it's ongoing. The oversight would start looking at the numbers: total time until ticket closed and maybe amount of reports resulting in no action. -Peter
participants (4)
-
Brian Nisbet -
Emilio Madaio -
Peter Koch -
Sander Steffann