Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-04 Discussion Phase (Validation of "abuse-mailbox")

[Suresh Ramasubramanian]

I am glad to hear that and of course that’s the case. But then I’m getting 
called out for “encouraging” consensus, to the point where it invites 
application of Godwin’s law, by crowding the room with people in support of the 
proposal, if I call for participation from organisations’ abuse teams.

I keep getting the sense of a long running old closed club where anything above 
packet pushing and dns aren’t quite operational and just barely tolerated / 
mostly ignored for the most part.

--srs

From: Rob Evans 
Date: Tuesday, 12 May 2020 at 12:21 AM
To: Suresh Ramasubramanian 
Cc: Sascha Luck [ml] , anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net 

Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-04 Discussion Phase (Validation of 
"abuse-mailbox")
Hi Suresh,

> All I am asking is that cobblers stick to their last. People with
> backgrounds in routing and networking are not necessarily the people
> in their organizations that handle abuse issues.

As I'm sure you're aware, the RIPE working groups are open to all
(regardless of any organisation's membership of the RIPE NCC or not,
or location in the traditional service area of the RIPE NCC), and I
would expect the Anti-Abuse Working Group to have reasonable
representation from those dealing with abuse issues.

I don't wish to speak for the co-chairs, but if those people aren't
represented I am sure they'd be welcome to take part in the working
group!

Equally, people working in dealing with abuse issues are welcome to
contribute to discussions on routing, networking, and re-soling shoes.

Cheers,
Rob

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-04 Discussion Phase (Validation of "abuse-mailbox")

[Carlos Friaças via anti-abuse-wg]

Hi,

On Mon, 11 May 2020, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:



Precisely.  But I wonder whether it is a greater problem to be packeted by a 
bot with C2 in IP space that would have been better off not being allocated, 
rather than being spammed
or phished from there.  And how much greater or lesser any or all of those 
compared to the inconvenience routing and networking people face from having 
resources taken away for
originating such traffic.


Spam and phishing happen above layer3, however, significantly reducing 
spam and phishing (and other malicious bits) would also reduce packets to 
be pushed around...


I can understand that for some people 90Gbps is (commercially) better 
than 9Gbps, even if 81Gbps of it are just plain crap...


Oh, and one man's crap can be another man's gold. Especially if the first 
is in the receiving end and the latter in a sender position. :-)


Regards,
Carlos

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-04 Discussion Phase (Validation of "abuse-mailbox")

[Rob Evans]

Hi Suresh,

> All I am asking is that cobblers stick to their last. People with
> backgrounds in routing and networking are not necessarily the people
> in their organizations that handle abuse issues.

As I'm sure you're aware, the RIPE working groups are open to all
(regardless of any organisation's membership of the RIPE NCC or not,
or location in the traditional service area of the RIPE NCC), and I
would expect the Anti-Abuse Working Group to have reasonable
representation from those dealing with abuse issues.

I don't wish to speak for the co-chairs, but if those people aren't
represented I am sure they'd be welcome to take part in the working
group!

Equally, people working in dealing with abuse issues are welcome to
contribute to discussions on routing, networking, and re-soling shoes.

Cheers,
Rob

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-04 Discussion Phase (Validation of "abuse-mailbox")

[Suresh Ramasubramanian]

Precisely.  But I wonder whether it is a greater problem to be packeted by a 
bot with C2 in IP space that would have been better off not being allocated, 
rather than being spammed or phished from there.  And how much greater or 
lesser any or all of those compared to the inconvenience routing and networking 
people face from having resources taken away for originating such traffic.

From: Gert Doering 
Date: Monday, 11 May 2020 at 11:12 PM
To: Suresh Ramasubramanian 
Cc: Sascha Luck [ml] , anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net 

Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-04 Discussion Phase (Validation of 
"abuse-mailbox")
Hi,

On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 05:23:43PM +, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
> All I am asking is that cobblers stick to their last. People with backgrounds 
> in routing and networking are not necessarily the people in their 
> organizations that handle abuse issues.
>
> Unless by extension you want your mailserver and spam filter people getting 
> enable on your routers, or you want to go and filter spam for example.

If you discuss "taking away resources" as sanctions for improper abuse
handling (which is how this proposal started), yes, routing and networking
people are most highly affected.

If this is about "do you want a mail address or a web form for reporting
abuse?", no, routing and networking people do not really care much.

Gert Doering
-- NetMaster
--
have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?

SpaceNet AG  Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael Emmer
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-04 Discussion Phase (Validation of "abuse-mailbox")

[Gert Doering]

Hi,

On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 10:46:51AM -0700, Randy Bush wrote:
> > If this is about "do you want a mail address or a web form for
> > reporting abuse?", no, routing and networking people do not really
> > care much.
> 
> depends.  will the bikeshed be magenta?

magenta bikesheds are only available if you pay...

gert
-- 
have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?

SpaceNet AG  Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael Emmer
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-04 Discussion Phase (Validation of "abuse-mailbox")

[Randy Bush]

> If this is about "do you want a mail address or a web form for
> reporting abuse?", no, routing and networking people do not really
> care much.

depends.  will the bikeshed be magenta?

randy

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-04 Discussion Phase (Validation of "abuse-mailbox")

[Gert Doering]

Hi,

On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 05:23:43PM +, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
> All I am asking is that cobblers stick to their last. People with backgrounds 
> in routing and networking are not necessarily the people in their 
> organizations that handle abuse issues.
> 
> Unless by extension you want your mailserver and spam filter people getting 
> enable on your routers, or you want to go and filter spam for example.

If you discuss "taking away resources" as sanctions for improper abuse
handling (which is how this proposal started), yes, routing and networking
people are most highly affected.

If this is about "do you want a mail address or a web form for reporting
abuse?", no, routing and networking people do not really care much.

Gert Doering
-- NetMaster
-- 
have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?

SpaceNet AG  Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael Emmer
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-04 Discussion Phase (Validation of "abuse-mailbox")

[Suresh Ramasubramanian]

All I am asking is that cobblers stick to their last. People with backgrounds 
in routing and networking are not necessarily the people in their organizations 
that handle abuse issues.

Unless by extension you want your mailserver and spam filter people getting 
enable on your routers, or you want to go and filter spam for example.

From: anti-abuse-wg 
Date: Monday, 11 May 2020 at 10:48 PM
To: anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net 
Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-04 Discussion Phase (Validation of 
"abuse-mailbox")
On Sat, May 09, 2020 at 11:56:58AM +, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
>In a case where the community is polarised to this extent it would be better 
>to break with procedure and call a vote for once.  With member organizations 
>represented by their abuse team heads, rather than IP / routing people, so 
>that the organisation’s stance on this is clear.

In the words of Lord Hoffman: " I find it difficult to express
with appropriate moderation my disagreement with the proposition"

Not only do you propose the abolition of the PDP, you want to
also limit the "electorate" to such as are more likely to be
sympathetic to your cause.

I don't even know how to respond to this without invoking
Godwin's Law or similar, so I'll stop here.

rgds,
Sascha Luck


>
>From: Gert Doering 
>Date: Saturday, 9 May 2020 at 3:57 PM
>To: Suresh Ramasubramanian 
>Cc: Randy Bush , Nick Hilliard , 
>anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net 
>Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-04 Discussion Phase (Validation of 
>"abuse-mailbox")
>Hi,
>
>On Sat, May 09, 2020 at 01:12:32AM +, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
>> Has this even been put to a vote or is it the same group of extremely vocal 
>> RIPE regulars against it and the same group of extremely vocal security 
>> types for it?   Rough consensus has its limitations in such cases.
>
>There is no voting.
>
>It's either "there is sufficient support and counterarguments have been
>adequately addressed" or "no consensus, rewrite or withdraw".
>
>Gert Doering
>-- NetMaster
>--
>have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?
>
>SpaceNet AG  Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael Emmer
>Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
>D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
>Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] About "consensus" and "voting"...

[Randy Bush]

> Suresh keeps attacking me without a single slightest proof, and hence
> I must respond.

a tale Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing.
-- bill

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-04 Discussion Phase (Validation of "abuse-mailbox")

[Sascha Luck [ml]]

On Sat, May 09, 2020 at 11:56:58AM +, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:

In a case where the community is polarised to this extent it would be better to 
break with procedure and call a vote for once.  With member organizations 
represented by their abuse team heads, rather than IP / routing people, so that 
the organisation?s stance on this is clear.


In the words of Lord Hoffman: " I find it difficult to express
with appropriate moderation my disagreement with the proposition"

Not only do you propose the abolition of the PDP, you want to
also limit the "electorate" to such as are more likely to be
sympathetic to your cause.

I don't even know how to respond to this without invoking
Godwin's Law or similar, so I'll stop here.

rgds,
Sascha Luck




From: Gert Doering 
Date: Saturday, 9 May 2020 at 3:57 PM
To: Suresh Ramasubramanian 
Cc: Randy Bush , Nick Hilliard , 
anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net 
Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-04 Discussion Phase (Validation of 
"abuse-mailbox")
Hi,

On Sat, May 09, 2020 at 01:12:32AM +, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:

Has this even been put to a vote or is it the same group of extremely vocal 
RIPE regulars against it and the same group of extremely vocal security types 
for it?   Rough consensus has its limitations in such cases.


There is no voting.

It's either "there is sufficient support and counterarguments have been
adequately addressed" or "no consensus, rewrite or withdraw".

Gert Doering
   -- NetMaster
--
have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?

SpaceNet AG  Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael Emmer
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-04 Discussion Phase (Validation of "abuse-mailbox")

[Nick Hilliard]

Ángel González Berdasco wrote on 11/05/2020 17:08:

These are not statistics about online abuse. These are statistics about
the contact information registered by RIPE being valid.


The statistics thing was something that was inserted into version 3 of 
the proposal.  It's hard to tell what the exact intention was, or what 
statistics were supposed to be collected.


Nick

[anti-abuse-wg] FW: About "consensus" and "voting"...

[Suresh Ramasubramanian]

Weird. Forwarding a (redacted) offlist email that pointed out that the archive 
URL I’d posted – which was dug out of my mailbox – is missing from the aawg 
archive, along with the rest of the email from Jan 2011.

From: Suresh Ramasubramanian 
Date: Monday, 11 May 2020 at 9:04 PM

That was from an old email I’d sent to the list – searched my archives.

The entire month’s email seems missing from the ripe mailman archives though.

https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/anti-abuse-wg/

February 2011:
[ Thread 
]
 [ Subject 
]
 [ Author 
]
 [ Date 
]
[ Gzip'd Text 34 KB 
]
December 2010:
[ Thread 
]
 [ Subject 
]
 [ Author 
]
 [ Date 
]
[ Gzip'd Text 47 KB 
]


From: removed
Date: Monday, 11 May 2020 at 5:55 PM
To: Suresh Ramasubramanian 
Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] About "consensus" and "voting"...

> On 11 May 2020, at 08:20, Suresh Ramasubramanian  wrote:
>
> https://ripe.net/ripe/maillists/archives/anti-abuse-wg/2011/msg0.html
>

Gets a Not found error page

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-04 Discussion Phase (Validation of "abuse-mailbox")

[Ángel González Berdasco]

El vie, 08-05-2020 a las 22:57 +0100, Nick Hilliard escribió:
> > I'm happy if you believe that my wording
> > is not good, and we agree on that goal, to find an alternative one.
> > Any suggestion?
> 
> Firstly, if you propose to collect stats about anything, you need to 
> think about what sort of stats should be collected.
> 
> Secondly, you need to make a credible argument about why the RIPE NCC 
> should be obliged to spend membership funds collecting these stats and 
> why the RIPE NCC is a more appropriate vehicle for collecting these 
> stats than other organisations which specialise in online security and 
> abuse issues, particularly those which already collect statistics about 
> online abuse.
> 
> Nick

Hello Nick

These are not statistics about online abuse. These are statistics about
the contact information registered by RIPE being valid.

RIPE contact database is like a phone book.

It doesn't matter for that if the number which was looked up was the
hairdresser's (a customer relationship) or the number of the upstairs
neighbour which is flooding your home (abuse).

It may be that the fire department has statistics of non-working
numbers on the phone book (since, incidentally, they are using the same
phone book as the rest of the people), but it is much more logical that
the entity tracking the phone book quality was be the one compiling the
phone book (even though it is the one which would need to provide the
proper number should be the actual customer).


Kind regards

-- 
INCIBE-CERT - CERT of the Spanish National Cybersecurity Institute
https://www.incibe-cert.es/

PGP Keys:
https://www.incibe-cert.es/en/what-is-incibe-cert/pgp-public-keys



INCIBE-CERT is the Spanish National CSIRT designated for citizens,
private law entities, other entities not included in the subjective
scope of application of the "Ley 40/2015, de 1 de octubre, de Régimen
Jurídico del Sector Público", as well as digital service providers,
operators of essential services and critical operators under the terms
of the "Real Decreto-ley 12/2018, de 7 de septiembre, de seguridad de
las redes y sistemas de información" that transposes the Directive (EU)
2016/1148 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 July 2016
concerning measures for a high common level of security of network and
information systems across the Union.

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] About "consensus" and "voting"...

[Suresh Ramasubramanian]

Due diligence can be legally problematic but the consequences, sooner or later, 
of not performing such due diligence are likely to be worse sooner or later.

A decade or so back, the discussion here was about handing out multiple /15s to 
various LIRs who were populating them entirely with snowshoe spam.  More than 
one person here back then was assuring me “oh that’s not a problem, IPv6 is 
here to stay and v4 is getting exhausted anyway”.

About your question as to whether this is going to help mitigate internet abuse 
because the shady outfit will just register a fresh shell company, apply for 
LIR status and resume their activities.

In security, you never let your adversaries entrench themselves in positions of 
strength, so chase them off ISPs, registrars and such on a regular enough basis 
and they’re left busy rebuilding their infrastructure – too busy to distribute 
malware or phish, never mind just spam.  Keep them moving often enough and 
their efficiency is reduced.

Take down a bunch of domains and suspend registrar accounts along with the IP 
addresses and the damage takes much longer for them to repair.  Besides if 
these are coordinated with arrests and equipment seizure coordinated with law 
enforcement, it takes much longer for them to bounce back.   The shutdown of 
Intercage / Atrivo back in 2008 was an early example.  A brief but extremely 
sharp dip in spam levels worldwide, so that various botmasters had to scramble 
to set up new hosting.   
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/securityfix/2008/10/spam_volumes_plummet_after_atr.html


From: Nick Hilliard 
Date: Monday, 11 May 2020 at 8:15 PM
To: Suresh Ramasubramanian 
Cc: anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net 
Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] About "consensus" and "voting"...
Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote on 11/05/2020 13:20:
> I am not entirely sure the discussion has moved all that much in the
> past decade beyond this exact point - how to pressure ripe to deal with
> shady actors getting themselves LIR status or appropriating large legacy
> netblocks belonging to defunct companies.

Fraudulent appropriation of network blocks is a direct violation of the
SSA, and is already actionable.  From what I understand, the RIPE NCC
already deals with abuse of this form on a regular basis.

Refusing to grant LIR status to "shady actors" is legally difficult.  So
is revocation of resource holdership on the grounds that the number
resources were used for specific purposes which may be illegal in some
or all of the RIPE NCC service region.

Acting outside the terms of legal proportionality is also problematic.
Many policy proposals have foundered on this issue.

Also, there are open questions as to whether deregistration of IP
addressing resources will have a real impact on abuse management, or
whether the abusers would just spin up another legal vehicle to conduct
their abuse.

Overall, this is a fraught area.  This is at least part of the reason
that it's been difficult to reach consensus on a good number of these
proposals.

Nick

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] About "consensus" and "voting"...

[Nick Hilliard]

Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote on 11/05/2020 13:20:
I am not entirely sure the discussion has moved all that much in the 
past decade beyond this exact point - how to pressure ripe to deal with 
shady actors getting themselves LIR status or appropriating large legacy 
netblocks belonging to defunct companies.


Fraudulent appropriation of network blocks is a direct violation of the 
SSA, and is already actionable.  From what I understand, the RIPE NCC 
already deals with abuse of this form on a regular basis.


Refusing to grant LIR status to "shady actors" is legally difficult.  So 
is revocation of resource holdership on the grounds that the number 
resources were used for specific purposes which may be illegal in some 
or all of the RIPE NCC service region.


Acting outside the terms of legal proportionality is also problematic. 
Many policy proposals have foundered on this issue.


Also, there are open questions as to whether deregistration of IP 
addressing resources will have a real impact on abuse management, or 
whether the abusers would just spin up another legal vehicle to conduct 
their abuse.


Overall, this is a fraught area.  This is at least part of the reason 
that it's been difficult to reach consensus on a good number of these 
proposals.


Nick

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] About "consensus" and "voting"...

[Suresh Ramasubramanian]

What Randy said applies in spades to the original strong community that the 
Internet used to be.

Today and over the past several years we have -

1. Organisations evolving into or being taken over by corporations who are more 
concerned with profit (keeping a bad customer despite pressure to the contrary) 
or cost saving (doing the bare minimum or less to maintain an abuse team) or 
both

2. Many bad actors themselves becoming part of the ecosystem for example 
registrars, LIRs, employees in RIRs like the unfortunate afrinic case and 
similar.

The system that Randy describes  - policy making based on consensus and mutual 
trust - is unfortunately undermined by various actors for one reason or the 
other, and this does lead to more and more demands for a change. I agree the 
change proposed - a vote - might be too radical a solution, but this discussion 
has been going on for more than eight years by my count.

I sent this to nanog in early 2011 and Richard Cox was heaved out of this wg 
some months before that

https://ripe.net/ripe/maillists/archives/anti-abuse-wg/2011/msg0.html

I am not entirely sure the discussion has moved all that much in the past 
decade beyond this exact point - how to pressure ripe to deal with shady actors 
getting themselves LIR status or appropriating large legacy netblocks belonging 
to defunct companies.


--srs

From: anti-abuse-wg  on behalf of Randy Bush 

Sent: Monday, May 11, 2020 5:17:57 PM
To: Brian Nisbet 
Cc: anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net 
Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] About "consensus" and "voting"...

brian,

excuse my continuing to rant.  if i write a long message, it can not be
good :)  as with spam, you have a delete key.

i think we all dislike spam and other forms of network abuse.  but this
is the only working group whose goal is negative, to stop something.
even the wg's name is composed of two negative words.

when i said:

> for a large segment of the community, and that which was pretty much
> the original population, there is an underlying physics and shared
> experience of moving packets, routing, circuits, bgp, ixen, ... that
> gives us a common experience and understanding.

underlying that culture is the imperative to see that packets get to the
desired destination.  routing, internet exchanges, dns, even ipv6 :)
it's a culture built on cooperation at its very core: bgp, exchanges,
dns replication, ... in order that packets go where they need to go.

so there will be a reflexive dislike of things which propose to stop
packets from getting to where they were intended to go.  proposals to
break routing, rescind address allocations, etc. evoke reactions similar
to proposals for capital punishment.  they seem extreme and go against
ingrained cultural norms.

but many of the citizens of the anti-abuse wg perceive that there is a
war.  as the general community dislikes 'abuse', there is emotional
desire that the anti-abuse warriors will 'win'.  but wars escalate.  and
what was at first defensive often becomes offensive.  and the tools of
the defenders become hard to tell from those of the attackers.  e.g., to
a router geek, rescinding an address allocation may 'feel' similar to a
route hijack and therefore invoke a negative response.  the upside is
that the anti-abuse wg gets significantly higher attendance :)

but this is no longer our mothers' internet.  how does a pacifistic
culture of cooperation deal with anti-cultural behavior?  darned if i
know, my daughter was the political scientist.

back to consensus and voting

given the cultural tensions above, it is likely that there will be
issues where agreement is either very long in coming or not reached at
all.  other than patience, how do we deal with that?  historically, it
has been what dave clark said a few decades back, about when ripe formed

We reject: kings, presidents and voting.
We believe in: rough consensus and running code.

when the ietf went through its ever ongoing omphaloskepsis on decision
making, pete resnik produced a rather nice document, rfc 7282.

to move from that to a win/lose voting system will be very hard in a
cooperative consensus based culture.  how do you motivate such a radical
change?  sad to say words such as 'democracy' ring hollow in today's
world.

we the abused should be careful not to grow up to be abusers.

randy

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] About "consensus" and "voting"...

[Randy Bush]

brian,

excuse my continuing to rant.  if i write a long message, it can not be
good :)  as with spam, you have a delete key.

i think we all dislike spam and other forms of network abuse.  but this
is the only working group whose goal is negative, to stop something.
even the wg's name is composed of two negative words.

when i said:

> for a large segment of the community, and that which was pretty much
> the original population, there is an underlying physics and shared
> experience of moving packets, routing, circuits, bgp, ixen, ... that
> gives us a common experience and understanding.

underlying that culture is the imperative to see that packets get to the
desired destination.  routing, internet exchanges, dns, even ipv6 :)
it's a culture built on cooperation at its very core: bgp, exchanges,
dns replication, ... in order that packets go where they need to go.

so there will be a reflexive dislike of things which propose to stop
packets from getting to where they were intended to go.  proposals to
break routing, rescind address allocations, etc. evoke reactions similar
to proposals for capital punishment.  they seem extreme and go against
ingrained cultural norms.

but many of the citizens of the anti-abuse wg perceive that there is a
war.  as the general community dislikes 'abuse', there is emotional
desire that the anti-abuse warriors will 'win'.  but wars escalate.  and
what was at first defensive often becomes offensive.  and the tools of
the defenders become hard to tell from those of the attackers.  e.g., to
a router geek, rescinding an address allocation may 'feel' similar to a
route hijack and therefore invoke a negative response.  the upside is
that the anti-abuse wg gets significantly higher attendance :)

but this is no longer our mothers' internet.  how does a pacifistic
culture of cooperation deal with anti-cultural behavior?  darned if i
know, my daughter was the political scientist.

back to consensus and voting

given the cultural tensions above, it is likely that there will be
issues where agreement is either very long in coming or not reached at
all.  other than patience, how do we deal with that?  historically, it
has been what dave clark said a few decades back, about when ripe formed

We reject: kings, presidents and voting.
We believe in: rough consensus and running code.

when the ietf went through its ever ongoing omphaloskepsis on decision
making, pete resnik produced a rather nice document, rfc 7282.

to move from that to a win/lose voting system will be very hard in a
cooperative consensus based culture.  how do you motivate such a radical
change?  sad to say words such as 'democracy' ring hollow in today's
world.

we the abused should be careful not to grow up to be abusers.

randy

[anti-abuse-wg] Elad Cohen: Moderation & Responses

[Brian Nisbet]

Colleagues,

We would greatly prefer not to be writing this email, but it felt more wrong 
not to.

You will have noticed that Elad Cohen has continued to successfully send emails 
to the list by creating new email addresses. This is, of course, easy, 
especially if you are determined. It is also against certainly the spirit of 
being placed in moderation and shows an unwillingness to abide by the Community 
code of conduct.

While the Co-Chairs, with the invaluable support of the NCC staff, will 
continue to try to moderate the list when needed, and guided by that code of 
conduct, we would ask simply that people do not interact with Elad Cohen on 
list. What you do elsewhere is outside of our remit, as it should be, but we do 
not see any merit to these conversations on the AA-WG mailing list.

Thank you all,

Alireza, Brian, Tobias
Co-Chairs, 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.nis...@heanet.ie www.heanet.ie

Registered in Ireland, No. 275301. CRA No. 20036270

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] About "consensus" and "voting"...

[Brian Nisbet]

All,

I think Randy has written this very clearly. That said, I am happy to discuss 
the concepts, and why the RIPE Community cleaves to them, with people, either 
on or off list.

The RIPE WGs, AA-WG included, have made policy and changed things over the 
years through this method. It's not perfect, nothing involving humans is, but 
policies have reached consensus, change has been effected, and I believe that 
will continue. Consensus is a great way to achieve that. And it's very 
important to remember that one voice can't stop that change just by objecting, 
in the same way one voice can't effect change just by repeatedly asking for it, 
if there is not consensus.

As Nick points out, there have been policies to which people objected, but 
those policies reached consensus, because the community and the Chairs adjudged 
that those objections had been addressed.

If there is ever a future where the RIPE Community changes our way of policy 
development then it will be a Community effort to make that change, and the 
AA-WG Co-Chairs have no intention of even attempting to suggest an exception 
for 2019-04.

Thank you all for your continued involvement,

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.nis...@heanet.ie www.heanet.ie

Registered in Ireland, No. 275301. CRA No. 20036270


From: anti-abuse-wg  on behalf of Randy Bush 

Sent: Saturday 9 May 2020 19:36
To: "Sérgio Rocha" 
Cc: anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net 
Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] About "consensus" and "voting"...

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.


> Otherwise we change the way the working Groups works it will remain
> unchanged for ever. I agree that we must get a way to vote or another
> democratic way to get decisions.

the goals of the ripe community are stewardship and cooperation, not
voting, deciding, and "getting things done."  you can look at the
current us govt for a great example of why not.

if we can not come to consensus on something, then we are patient.
and that's ok.  we move as a cooperative community and that takes
time.

yes, this becomes more complex as the community scales and becomes
more diverse.  and we want diversity and wide representation.  so
ever more patience is needed; not the means to rush to judgment.

for a large segment of the community, and that which was pretty much
the original population, there is an underlying physics and shared
experience of moving packets, routing, circuits, bgp, ixen, ... that
gives us a common experience and understanding.

as we become more diverse, the physics of that shared experience and
understanding weakens.  so cooperative/consensus decision making is
more complex and takes longer.  welcome to a larger and mode diverse
community.  this is good.

but we are stewards of one internet.

it took eight, yes eight, years for me to get the ietf to change a
constant from 4k to 64k (rfc 8654).  so my sense of urgency may be a
little different than that of others.

randy

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-04 Discussion Phase (Validation of "abuse-mailbox")

[Alessandro Vesely]

On Sun 10/May/2020 04:43:30 +0200 No No wrote:
> /" A statement by the registrant that they are not willing to employ an abuse
> team would be the best evidence."/
> /
> /
> ... Followed by swift de-registration of all IP resources.


Bravo!  Here you're touching the very essence of our disagreement.


Please don't think that I wouldn't opt for a world without miscreants, if it
were possible.  However, by de-registration you're not eliminating those people
and you're not stopping their abusing, are you?  (Don't reply "If all the RIRs
did like so...").

And then, what's the practical difference between eliminating miscreants and
just eluding them, apart from the fact that the former is not possible while
the latter is?


Best
Ale
--