Hi Petrit,
I can see it *now* published, however, *last week* (on 20th according to my
browser history), I was working in another policy proposal and looking at this
web page, and the text related to the appeal was not there.
Could you confirm when it was published and announced?
I fully understand that this is the first time we have an appeal and a few days
delay in the publication is fine, but in my opinion, it should have been
published in a matter of days (not weeks). Furthermore, reading the PDP, the
appropriate location on the RIPE web site is not in the proposal web page (may
be a link there to the appropriate appeals web page), because otherwise, that
means we are updating a web page without stating *when* it has been updated.
There is not a "track of changes" of the web page.
Definitively, we are missing in every web page or modification, a publication
date, in order to be completely transparent.
Saludos,
Jordi
@jordipalet
El 26/10/20 9:52, "Petrit Hasani" <phas...@ripe.net> escribió:
Hello Jordi,
I would just like to comment on your first point.
The appeal was published on the RIPE NCC website on the following links:
https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2019-04
https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/archived-policy-proposals/archive-policy-proposals/
We are currently working to update it by including the recent decision of
the WGCC.
Kind regards,
--
Petrit Hasani
Policy Officer
RIPE NCC
> On 26 Oct 2020, at 09:39, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via anti-abuse-wg
<anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net> wrote:
>
> 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.
**********************************************
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.
