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" <m...@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.
