Appeal against the Anti-Abuse WG Co-chairs decisions on proposal 2019-04 (Validation of “abuse-mailbox”)
Hi all, This appeal (attached in PDF) follows the process outlined by ripe-710 (RIPE PDP). Regards, Jordi @jordipalet ********************************************** 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.
Jordi, The proposal received a lot of push back. Your statement "some clear support for the policy during the discussion phase", is missing the word "marginal" between some and clear. I believe the Anti-Abuse WG Co-Chairs made the right call. Please consider retracting your appeal. -- IDGARA | Alex de Joode | alex@idgara.nl | +31651108221 On Mon, 05-10-2020 10h 23min, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet@consulintel.es> wrote:
Hi all,
This appeal (attached in PDF) follows the process outlined by ripe-710 (RIPE PDP).
Regards, Jordi @jordipalet
********************************************** 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.
You don't know that it was "marginal" support, because no count was ever conducted. The Chair never asked for a "vote", and then when people didn't "vote" (because they had never been asked to), they concluded (wrongly) that there was no support for the proposal. On 5/10/2020 8:51 pm, Alex de Joode wrote:
Jordi,
The proposal received a lot of push back. Your statement "some clear support for the policy during the discussion phase", is missing the word "marginal" between some and clear.
I believe the Anti-Abuse WG Co-Chairs made the right call. Please consider retracting your appeal.
-- IDGARA | Alex de Joode | alex@idgara.nl | +31651108221
On Mon, 05-10-2020 10h 23min, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet@consulintel.es> wrote:
Hi all,
This appeal (attached in PDF) follows the process outlined by ripe-710 (RIPE PDP).
Regards, Jordi @jordipalet
********************************************** 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.
All, I'm on leave from work this week and not checking this email a/c as often as I normally would (or, hopefully, at all this week!), but I wanted to pop in to clarify something. We do not vote on proposals in the RIPE community. We discuss them and either consensus is reached or it is not. There is, therefore, no calls for votes, nor counting of same. I would encourage everyone to read the material at https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies in order to gain a better understanding of the 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 PP <phishphucker@storey.ovh> Sent: Monday 5 October 2020 11:04 To: anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net <anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net> Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] [policy-announce] Appeal against the Anti-Abuse WG Co-chairs decisions on proposal 2019-04 (Validation of “abuse-mailbox”) CAUTION[External]: This email originated from outside of the organisation. Do not click on links or open the attachments unless you recognise the sender and know the content is safe. You don't know that it was "marginal" support, because no count was ever conducted. The Chair never asked for a "vote", and then when people didn't "vote" (because they had never been asked to), they concluded (wrongly) that there was no support for the proposal. On 5/10/2020 8:51 pm, Alex de Joode wrote: Jordi, The proposal received a lot of push back. Your statement "some clear support for the policy during the discussion phase", is missing the word "marginal" between some and clear. I believe the Anti-Abuse WG Co-Chairs made the right call. Please consider retracting your appeal. -- IDGARA | Alex de Joode | alex@idgara.nl<mailto:alex@idgara.nl> | +31651108221 On Mon, 05-10-2020 10h 23min, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet@consulintel.es><mailto:jordi.palet@consulintel.es> wrote: Hi all, This appeal (attached in PDF) follows the process outlined by ripe-710 (RIPE PDP). Regards, Jordi @jordipalet ********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.theipv6company.com<https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.theipv6company.com%2F&data=02%7C01%7C%7Ca2a4a12e445d4c10fa4308d869160918%7Ccd9e8269dfb648e082538b7baf8d3391%7C0%7C0%7C637374890673962409&sdata=NQ%2FgJyz%2BpjWRO1Xh0PUGPmm7thiUh3jeEpAGLaYiRGw%3D&reserved=0> 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.
Which then allows you to mistakenly claim there is or isn't consensus. Which itself is prone to abuse. On 6/10/2020 2:28 am, Brian Nisbet wrote:
All,
I'm on leave from work this week and not checking this email a/c as often as I normally would (or, hopefully, at all this week!), but I wanted to pop in to clarify something.
We do not vote on proposals in the RIPE community. We discuss them and either consensus is reached or it is not. There is, therefore, no calls for votes, nor counting of same.
I would encourage everyone to read the material at https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies in order to gain a better understanding of the 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 PP <phishphucker@storey.ovh> *Sent:* Monday 5 October 2020 11:04 *To:* anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net <anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net> *Subject:* Re: [anti-abuse-wg] [policy-announce] Appeal against the Anti-Abuse WG Co-chairs decisions on proposal 2019-04 (Validation of “abuse-mailbox”) CAUTION[External]: This email originated from outside of the organisation. Do not click on links or open the attachments unless you recognise the sender and know the content is safe.
You don't know that it was "marginal" support, because no count was ever conducted.
The Chair never asked for a "vote", and then when people didn't "vote" (because they had never been asked to), they concluded (wrongly) that there was no support for the proposal.
On 5/10/2020 8:51 pm, Alex de Joode wrote:
Jordi,
The proposal received a lot of push back. Your statement "some clear support for the policy during the discussion phase", is missing the word "marginal" between some and clear.
I believe the Anti-Abuse WG Co-Chairs made the right call. Please consider retracting your appeal.
-- IDGARA | Alex de Joode | alex@idgara.nl <mailto:alex@idgara.nl> | +31651108221
On Mon, 05-10-2020 10h 23min, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet@consulintel.es> <mailto:jordi.palet@consulintel.es> wrote:
Hi all,
This appeal (attached in PDF) follows the process outlined by ripe-710 (RIPE PDP).
Regards, Jordi @jordipalet
********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.theipv6company.com <https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.theipv6company.com%2F&data=02%7C01%7C%7Ca2a4a12e445d4c10fa4308d869160918%7Ccd9e8269dfb648e082538b7baf8d3391%7C0%7C0%7C637374890673962409&sdata=NQ%2FgJyz%2BpjWRO1Xh0PUGPmm7thiUh3jeEpAGLaYiRGw%3D&reserved=0> 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.
Which then allows you to mistakenly claim there is or isn't consensus. Which itself is prone to abuse.
you may want to take a look at 7282 On Consensus and Humming in the IETF. P. Resnick. June 2014. but we have been here before -- Ettore Bugatti, maker of the finest cars of his day, was once asked why his cars had less than perfect brakes. He replied something like, "Any fool can make a car stop. It takes a genius to make a car go." randy
Hi Alex, The consensus is not measured in terms of “how much” support, but if the objections have been refuted. And, in case you missed that, the sentence “some clear support for the policy during the discussion phase” is quoted from the Co-chairs email, not my words: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/anti-abuse-wg/2020-September/005929.... Regards, Jordi @jordipalet El 5/10/20 11:51, "Alex de Joode" <alex@idgara.nl> escribió: Jordi, The proposal received a lot of push back. Your statement "some clear support for the policy during the discussion phase", is missing the word "marginal" between some and clear. I believe the Anti-Abuse WG Co-Chairs made the right call. Please consider retracting your appeal. -- IDGARA | Alex de Joode | alex@idgara.nl | +31651108221 On Mon, 05-10-2020 10h 23min, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet@consulintel.es> wrote: Hi all, This appeal (attached in PDF) follows the process outlined by ripe-710 (RIPE PDP). Regards, Jordi @jordipalet ********************************************** 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.
Dear Jordi, You have submitted an appeal against the Anti-Abuse WG Co-chairs decision on the policy proposal 2019-04 (Validation of “abuse-mailbox”) As outlined in section 4 of the "Policy Development Process in RIPE”, your appeal will be forwarded to the Working Group Chairs Collective (WGCC): https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-710 The WGCC will decide by consensus whether to uphold or reject appeals which have been submitted. Your appeal will also be published on the RIPE NCC website. Kind regards, -- Petrit Hasani Policy Officer RIPE NCC
On 5 Oct 2020, at 10:23, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet@consulintel.es> wrote:
Hi all,
This appeal (attached in PDF) follows the process outlined by ripe-710 (RIPE PDP).
Regards, Jordi @jordipalet
********************************************** 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.
<appeal-2019-04-v1.pdf>
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). 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.
participants (7)
-
Alex de Joode -
Brian Nisbet -
JORDI PALET MARTINEZ -
Mirjam Kuehne -
Petrit Hasani -
PP -
Randy Bush