Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-04 Policy Proposal Withdrawn (Validation of "abuse-mailbox")

[JJS JJS]

I disagree that it did not reach consensus. There was never any proper
measure of whether it reached consensus.

---



On Wed, Sep 9, 2020 at 1:48 AM Petrit Hasani  wrote:

> Dear colleagues,
>
> The policy proposal 2019-04, "Validation of "abuse-mailbox”” has been
> withdrawn.
>
> The proposal aimed to have the RIPE NCC validate "abuse-c:” information
> more often and introduce a new validation process.
>
> The proposal is archived and can be found at:
>
> https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/archived-policy-proposals/archive-policy-proposals/
>
> Reason for withdrawal:
> The proposal did not reach consensus and the WG chairs did not feel that
> any further redrafting of the proposal would achieve consensus.
>
> Kind regards,
> --
> Petrit Hasani
> Policy Officer
> RIPE NCC
>
>
>
>
>
>

[anti-abuse-wg] 2019-04 Policy Proposal Withdrawn (Validation of "abuse-mailbox")

[Petrit Hasani]

Dear colleagues,

The policy proposal 2019-04, "Validation of "abuse-mailbox”” has been withdrawn.

The proposal aimed to have the RIPE NCC validate "abuse-c:” information more 
often and introduce a new validation process.

The proposal is archived and can be found at:
https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/archived-policy-proposals/archive-policy-proposals/

Reason for withdrawal:
The proposal did not reach consensus and the WG chairs did not feel that any 
further redrafting of the proposal would achieve consensus.

Kind regards,
--
Petrit Hasani
Policy Officer
RIPE NCC







signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Report & Co-Chair's Decision on Proposal 2019-04

[Michele Neylon - Blacknight]

Your fixation with web forms isn't helping you.

Either you want operators to deal with abuse reports or not. 

If operators use web forms AND take action when appropriate, then you've no 
reason to complain about them.


--
Mr Michele Neylon

Blacknight Solutions

Hosting, Colocation & Domains

https://www.blacknight.com
https://blacknight.blog /

http://ceo.hosting/

Intl. +353 (0) 59  9183072

Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090

---

Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park, Sleaty 
Road, Graiguecullen, Carlow, R93 X265,Ireland  Company No.: 370845

On 08/09/2020, 14:51, "anti-abuse-wg on behalf of Carlos Friaças via 
anti-abuse-wg"  wrote:



On Tue, 8 Sep 2020, Alex de Joode wrote:

> There are a couple of things in play here.
> Networks normally fall under the "mere conduit' provisions of the 
eCommerce Directive (ECD (EU law)), this
> means they do not have a (legal) requirement to actively address abuse 
within their networks. They need to
> forward the abuse to their customer, but basically that is it.

Before that, a webform may be in the way :-)

If the regulator understands that artificial 'requirement' to be a way of 
avoiding that action of forwarding the abuse, then they might act. Or not.



> The up coming DSA (Digital Services Act, which
> will supersede the ECD) (as it stand now) will retain this provision for 
networks. So the chance of regulation
> (within the EU area) for networks with respect to 'abuse handling' is 
very low.

Unless there are some additional provisions...



> The proposal was flawed, no clear identifiable upside (except for a feel 
good factor) and a lot extra work for
> no real gain.
> 
> If you want to fight the prevalence of internet abuse, ripe policy might 
not be your best avenue.

Clearly. But this comment is directly tied with the earlier suggestion of 
renaming the WG...


Regards,
Carlos




> Cheers,
> Alex
> 
> ?-- IDGARA | Alex de Joode | a...@idgara.nl | +31651108221 | 
Skype:adejoode
> 
> On Tue, 08-09-2020 13h 33min, Suresh Ramasubramanian 
 wrote:
> Probably through regulation as you say. If ripe doesn?t want to be the 
Internet police they?ll suddenly find
> that there actually is such a thing created and with oversight over them, 
sooner or later. Nobody is
> going to like the result if that happens, neither the government nor ripe 
nor its membership.
> 
> --srs
> 
> 
__
> From: anti-abuse-wg  on behalf of Carlos 
Friaças via anti-abuse-wg
> 
> Sent: Tuesday, September 8, 2020 4:44:26 PM
> To: anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net 
> Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Report & Co-Chair's Decision on Proposal 
2019-04  
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I would like to second Piotr's comment. Thank you for your hard work, and
> for not quitting over anti-abuse.
> 
> As i read it consensus was not reached, and it's hard to dispute the
> objections are not valid/admissible:
> 
> "
> 1) Nick Hilliard and Erik Bais commented that the effort and cost to
> implement this proposal are too great in relations to the benefits that
> are alleged.
> 
> 2) Michele Neylon and Arash Naderpour commented that they oppose forcing
> operators to use only email for
> handling abuse reports and internal handling procedures should be solely
> defined by the operator.
> "
> 
> I just want to note that:
> A) it's very hard to measure the benefits. some parties would see bigger
> benefits than others.
> B) converging abuse reports to email usage is a rule that is inexistent
> *today*. people which are not worried about abuse, will likely want to
> keep it that way... as a webform is an effective way of discouraging
> reports.
> 
> 
> At some point, people which discard abuse reports (or people which
> simulate handling abuse reports) will not be able to run networks.
> We're far from it, but if it gets to that point that will not be reached
> through consensus, but probably through regulation.
> 
> 
> Regards,
> Carlos
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Mon, 7 Sep 2020, Piotr Strzyzewski via anti-abuse-wg wrote:
> 
> > On Mon, Sep 07, 2020 at 03:19:27PM +, Brian Nisbet wrote:
> >
> > Brian, Alireza, Tobias,
> >
> >> A few weeks ago we reached the end of the latest review phase for 
2019-04. The Co-Chairs have worked
> closely with the NCC Policy Development Office since then to try to make 
a decision on this policy. This
> email contains a report on the Discussion Phase and Review Phase and then 
a final decision which, we
> believe, is supported by the activity during those phases.
> >>
> >> As always, 

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Report & Co-Chair's Decision on Proposal 2019-04

[Carlos Friaças via anti-abuse-wg]

On Tue, 8 Sep 2020, Alex de Joode wrote:


There are a couple of things in play here.
Networks normally fall under the "mere conduit' provisions of the eCommerce 
Directive (ECD (EU law)), this
means they do not have a (legal) requirement to actively address abuse within 
their networks. They need to
forward the abuse to their customer, but basically that is it.


Before that, a webform may be in the way :-)

If the regulator understands that artificial 'requirement' to be a way of 
avoiding that action of forwarding the abuse, then they might act. Or not.





The up coming DSA (Digital Services Act, which
will supersede the ECD) (as it stand now) will retain this provision for 
networks. So the chance of regulation
(within the EU area) for networks with respect to 'abuse handling' is very low.


Unless there are some additional provisions...




The proposal was flawed, no clear identifiable upside (except for a feel good 
factor) and a lot extra work for
no real gain.

If you want to fight the prevalence of internet abuse, ripe policy might not be 
your best avenue.


Clearly. But this comment is directly tied with the earlier suggestion of 
renaming the WG...



Regards,
Carlos





Cheers,
Alex

?-- IDGARA | Alex de Joode | a...@idgara.nl | +31651108221 | Skype:adejoode

On Tue, 08-09-2020 13h 33min, Suresh Ramasubramanian  
wrote:
Probably through regulation as you say. If ripe doesn?t want to be the Internet 
police they?ll suddenly find
that there actually is such a thing created and with oversight over them, 
sooner or later. Nobody is
going to like the result if that happens, neither the government nor ripe nor 
its membership.

--srs

__
From: anti-abuse-wg  on behalf of Carlos 
Friaças via anti-abuse-wg

Sent: Tuesday, September 8, 2020 4:44:26 PM
To: anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net 
Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Report & Co-Chair's Decision on Proposal 2019-04  

Hi,

I would like to second Piotr's comment. Thank you for your hard work, and
for not quitting over anti-abuse.

As i read it consensus was not reached, and it's hard to dispute the
objections are not valid/admissible:

"
1) Nick Hilliard and Erik Bais commented that the effort and cost to
implement this proposal are too great in relations to the benefits that
are alleged.

2) Michele Neylon and Arash Naderpour commented that they oppose forcing
operators to use only email for
handling abuse reports and internal handling procedures should be solely
defined by the operator.
"

I just want to note that:
A) it's very hard to measure the benefits. some parties would see bigger
benefits than others.
B) converging abuse reports to email usage is a rule that is inexistent
*today*. people which are not worried about abuse, will likely want to
keep it that way... as a webform is an effective way of discouraging
reports.


At some point, people which discard abuse reports (or people which
simulate handling abuse reports) will not be able to run networks.
We're far from it, but if it gets to that point that will not be reached
through consensus, but probably through regulation.


Regards,
Carlos




On Mon, 7 Sep 2020, Piotr Strzyzewski via anti-abuse-wg wrote:

> On Mon, Sep 07, 2020 at 03:19:27PM +, Brian Nisbet wrote:
>
> Brian, Alireza, Tobias,
>
>> A few weeks ago we reached the end of the latest review phase for 2019-04. 
The Co-Chairs have worked
closely with the NCC Policy Development Office since then to try to make a 
decision on this policy. This
email contains a report on the Discussion Phase and Review Phase and then a 
final decision which, we
believe, is supported by the activity during those phases.
>>
>> As always, this is underpinned by the RIPE PDP - 
https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-710
>
> [cut]
>
>> With all of this in mind, and with the continued failure of any kind of 
consensus from the working
group, the Co-Chairs have decided to withdraw this proposal. As always we would 
welcome proposals on
this and other matters, however we do not feel that there is any likelihood of 
2019-04, regardless of
possible edits, reaching consensus in the short or medium term.
>
> Thank you for all your hard work here. It was not an easy task to
> fulfill. With this is mind, it is even more important that you have made
> this report. Thank you.
>
> Stay safe,
> Piotr
>
> --
> Piotr Strzy?ewski
>

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Report & Co-Chair's Decision on Proposal 2019-04

[Alex de Joode]

There are a couple of things in play here.


Networks normally fall under the "mere conduit' provisions of the eCommerce 
Directive (ECD (EU law)), this means they do not have a (legal) requirement to 
actively address abuse within their networks. They need to forward the abuse to 
their customer, but basically that is it. The up coming DSA (Digital Services 
Act, which will supersede the ECD) (as it stand now) will retain this provision 
for networks. So the chance of regulation (within the EU area) for networks 
with respect to 'abuse handling' is very low.

The proposal was flawed, no clear identifiable upside (except for a feel good 
factor) and a lot extra work for no real gain.

If you want to fight the prevalence of internet abuse, ripe policy might not be 
your best avenue.
Cheers,
Alex
​-- 
IDGARA | Alex de Joode | a...@idgara.nl | +31651108221 | Skype:adejoode


On Tue, 08-09-2020 13h 33min, Suresh Ramasubramanian  
wrote:
> 








Probably through regulation as you say. If ripe doesn’t want to be the Internet 
police they’ll suddenly find that there actually is such a thing created and 
with oversight over them, sooner or later. Nobody is going to like the result 
if that happens,
 neither the government nor ripe nor its membership.

> 

--srs









From: anti-abuse-wg  on behalf of Carlos 
Friaças via anti-abuse-wg 
> 
Sent: Tuesday, September 8, 2020 4:44:26 PM
> 
To: anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net 
> 
Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Report & Co-Chair's Decision on Proposal 2019-04

 



> 
Hi,
> 

> 
I would like to second Piotr's comment. Thank you for your hard work, and 
> 
for not quitting over anti-abuse.
> 

> 
As i read it consensus was not reached, and it's hard to dispute the 
> 
objections are not valid/admissible:
> 

> 
"
> 
1) Nick Hilliard and Erik Bais commented that the effort and cost to 
> 
implement this proposal are too great in relations to the benefits that 
> 
are alleged.
> 

> 
2) Michele Neylon and Arash Naderpour commented that they oppose forcing 
> 
operators to use only email for
> 
handling abuse reports and internal handling procedures should be solely 
> 
defined by the operator.
> 
"
> 

> 
I just want to note that: 
> 
A) it's very hard to measure the benefits. some parties would see bigger 
> 
benefits than others.
> 
B) converging abuse reports to email usage is a rule that is inexistent 
> 
*today*. people which are not worried about abuse, will likely want to 
> 
keep it that way... as a webform is an effective way of discouraging 
> 
reports.
> 

> 

> 
At some point, people which discard abuse reports (or people which 
> 
simulate handling abuse reports) will not be able to run networks. 
> 
We're far from it, but if it gets to that point that will not be reached 
> 
through consensus, but probably through regulation.
> 

> 

> 
Regards,
> 
Carlos
> 

> 

> 

> 

> 
On Mon, 7 Sep 2020, Piotr Strzyzewski via anti-abuse-wg wrote:
> 

> 
> On Mon, Sep 07, 2020 at 03:19:27PM +, Brian Nisbet wrote:
> 
>
> 
> Brian, Alireza, Tobias,
> 
>
> 
>> A few weeks ago we reached the end of the latest review phase for 2019-04. 
>> The Co-Chairs have worked closely with the NCC Policy Development Office 
>> since then to try to make a decision on this policy. This email contains a 
>> report on the Discussion Phase
 and Review Phase and then a final decision which, we believe, is supported by 
the activity during those phases.
> 
>>
> 
>> As always, this is underpinned by the RIPE PDP - 
https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-710
> 
>
> 
> [cut]
> 
>
> 
>> With all of this in mind, and with the continued failure of any kind of 
>> consensus from the working group, the Co-Chairs have decided to withdraw 
>> this proposal. As always we would welcome proposals on this and other 
>> matters, however we do not feel that there
 is any likelihood of 2019-04, regardless of possible edits, reaching consensus 
in the short or medium term.
> 
>
> 
> Thank you for all your hard work here. It was not an easy task to
> 
> fulfill. With this is mind, it is even more important that you have made
> 
> this report. Thank you.
> 
>
> 
> Stay safe,
> 
> Piotr
> 
>
> 
> -- 
> 
> Piotr Strzy?ewski
> 
>
> 

> 

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Report & Co-Chair's Decision on Proposal 2019-04

[Michele Neylon - Blacknight]

Maybe you need to tone it down?


--
Mr Michele Neylon
Blacknight Solutions
Hosting, Colocation & Domains
https://www.blacknight.com
https://blacknight.blog /
http://ceo.hosting/
Intl. +353 (0) 59  9183072
Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090
---
Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park, Sleaty 
Road, Graiguecullen, Carlow, R93 X265,Ireland  Company No.: 370845

From: anti-abuse-wg  on behalf of JJS JJS 

Date: Tuesday 8 September 2020 at 11:44
To: "anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net" 
Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Report & Co-Chair's Decision on Proposal 2019-04

"Effectively either of these two things would have had the same result for the 
decision on consensus."

Perhaps if someone moves to re-name the group "promotion of abuse working group"

--



On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 6:31 PM Brian Nisbet 
mailto:brian.nis...@heanet.ie>> wrote:
Jordi,

I'm not entirely certain that we would 100% agree here, but this may be nuance. 
We didn't do a direct mapping, but we did make an indicative assumption that 
opinions wouldn't have changed, while also considering what would have happened 
if those same people had said exactly the same thing in the Review Phase.

Effectively either of these two things would have had the same result for the 
decision on consensus.

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: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ 
mailto:jordi.pa...@consulintel.es>>
Sent: Tuesday 8 September 2020 09:20
To: Brian Nisbet mailto:brian.nis...@heanet.ie>>; 
anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net 
mailto:anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net>>
Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Report & Co-Chair's Decision on Proposal 2019-04

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.


Hi Brian,



I understand that the people can change their mind, for example, after other 
comments or the IA, etc.



This is the same across different proposal versions, even editorial text 
changes. People can change their mind.



However not stating a “mind change”, should be taken as having changed their 
position. I understand that you agree on all that and your decision is based on 
that perspective?



(I want to make sure that language differences between English and Spanish are 
not an interpretation problem here)



Regards,

Jordi

@jordipalet







El 8/9/20 10:07, "Brian Nisbet" 
mailto:brian.nis...@heanet.ie>> escribió:



Jordi,



Under the PDP, given potential changes to the policy and inputs such as the 
Impact Analysis it is very difficult for the Co-Chairs to make assumptions 
about points of view as we move into the Review Phase, hence people will often 
restate their support or opposition to the policy, and indeed will often hark 
back to comments they have previously made.



Again, this is why we listed the comments from the Discussion Phase and the 
Co-Chairs feel, even if everyone had made those same comments, the Co-Chairs 
feel there was no clear consensus for change.



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: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ 
mailto:jordi.pa...@consulintel.es>>
Sent: Tuesday 8 September 2020 08:58
To: Brian Nisbet mailto:brian.nis...@heanet.ie>>; 
anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net 
mailto:anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net>>
Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Report & Co-Chair's Decision on Proposal 2019-04



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.



Hi Brian, all,



First of all, tks for this detailed report. I’m still processing it.



However, I’ve a open question for you, which I think it has been also clear 
from other emails, that it is not clear for the community.



People in favor (or against) the proposal has not (including myself), re-stated 
their position or repeated the same arguments. Is not that an indication that 
they keep their previous position?



Regards,

Jordi

@jordipalet







El 7/9/20 17:19, "anti-abuse-wg en nombre de Brian Nisbet" 
mailto:anti-abuse-wg-boun...@ripe.net> en 
nombre de brian.nis...@heanet.ie> escribió:



Colleagues,



A few weeks ago we 

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Report & Co-Chair's Decision on Proposal 2019-04

[Suresh Ramasubramanian]

Probably through regulation as you say. If ripe doesn’t want to be the Internet 
police they’ll suddenly find that there actually is such a thing created and 
with oversight over them, sooner or later. Nobody is going to like the result 
if that happens, neither the government nor ripe nor its membership.

--srs

From: anti-abuse-wg  on behalf of Carlos 
Friaças via anti-abuse-wg 
Sent: Tuesday, September 8, 2020 4:44:26 PM
To: anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net 
Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Report & Co-Chair's Decision on Proposal 2019-04


Hi,

I would like to second Piotr's comment. Thank you for your hard work, and
for not quitting over anti-abuse.

As i read it consensus was not reached, and it's hard to dispute the
objections are not valid/admissible:

"
1) Nick Hilliard and Erik Bais commented that the effort and cost to
implement this proposal are too great in relations to the benefits that
are alleged.

2) Michele Neylon and Arash Naderpour commented that they oppose forcing
operators to use only email for
handling abuse reports and internal handling procedures should be solely
defined by the operator.
"

I just want to note that:
A) it's very hard to measure the benefits. some parties would see bigger
benefits than others.
B) converging abuse reports to email usage is a rule that is inexistent
*today*. people which are not worried about abuse, will likely want to
keep it that way... as a webform is an effective way of discouraging
reports.


At some point, people which discard abuse reports (or people which
simulate handling abuse reports) will not be able to run networks.
We're far from it, but if it gets to that point that will not be reached
through consensus, but probably through regulation.


Regards,
Carlos




On Mon, 7 Sep 2020, Piotr Strzyzewski via anti-abuse-wg wrote:

> On Mon, Sep 07, 2020 at 03:19:27PM +, Brian Nisbet wrote:
>
> Brian, Alireza, Tobias,
>
>> A few weeks ago we reached the end of the latest review phase for 2019-04. 
>> The Co-Chairs have worked closely with the NCC Policy Development Office 
>> since then to try to make a decision on this policy. This email contains a 
>> report on the Discussion Phase and Review Phase and then a final decision 
>> which, we believe, is supported by the activity during those phases.
>>
>> As always, this is underpinned by the RIPE PDP - 
>> https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-710
>
> [cut]
>
>> With all of this in mind, and with the continued failure of any kind of 
>> consensus from the working group, the Co-Chairs have decided to withdraw 
>> this proposal. As always we would welcome proposals on this and other 
>> matters, however we do not feel that there is any likelihood of 2019-04, 
>> regardless of possible edits, reaching consensus in the short or medium term.
>
> Thank you for all your hard work here. It was not an easy task to
> fulfill. With this is mind, it is even more important that you have made
> this report. Thank you.
>
> Stay safe,
> Piotr
>
> --
> Piotr Strzy?ewski
>

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Report & Co-Chair's Decision on Proposal 2019-04

[JJS JJS]

*"Effectively either of these two things would have had the same result for
the decision on consensus."*

Perhaps if someone moves to re-name the group "promotion of abuse working
group"

--



On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 6:31 PM Brian Nisbet  wrote:

> Jordi,
>
> I'm not entirely certain that we would 100% agree here, but this may be
> nuance. We didn't do a direct mapping, but we did make an indicative
> assumption that opinions wouldn't have changed, while also considering what
> would have happened if those same people had said exactly the same thing in
> the Review Phase.
>
> Effectively either of these two things would have had the same result for
> the decision on consensus.
>
> 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:* JORDI PALET MARTINEZ 
> *Sent:* Tuesday 8 September 2020 09:20
> *To:* Brian Nisbet ; anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net <
> anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net>
> *Subject:* Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Report & Co-Chair's Decision on Proposal
> 2019-04
>
>
> 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.
>
> Hi Brian,
>
>
>
> I understand that the people can change their mind, for example, after
> other comments or the IA, etc.
>
>
>
> This is the same across different proposal versions, even editorial text
> changes. People can change their mind.
>
>
>
> However not stating a “mind change”, should be taken as having changed
> their position. I understand that you agree on all that and your decision
> is based on that perspective?
>
>
>
> (I want to make sure that language differences between English and Spanish
> are not an interpretation problem here)
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Jordi
>
> @jordipalet
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> El 8/9/20 10:07, "Brian Nisbet"  escribió:
>
>
>
> Jordi,
>
>
>
> Under the PDP, given potential changes to the policy and inputs such as
> the Impact Analysis it is very difficult for the Co-Chairs to make
> assumptions about points of view as we move into the Review Phase, hence
> people will often restate their support or opposition to the policy, and
> indeed will often hark back to comments they have previously made.
>
>
>
> Again, this is why we listed the comments from the Discussion Phase and
> the Co-Chairs feel, even if everyone had made those same comments, the
> Co-Chairs feel there was no clear consensus for change.
>
>
>
> 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:* JORDI PALET MARTINEZ 
> *Sent:* Tuesday 8 September 2020 08:58
> *To:* Brian Nisbet ; anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net <
> anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net>
> *Subject:* Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Report & Co-Chair's Decision on Proposal
> 2019-04
>
>
>
> 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.
>
>
>
> Hi Brian, all,
>
>
>
> First of all, tks for this detailed report. I’m still processing it.
>
>
>
> However, I’ve a open question for you, which I think it has been also
> clear from other emails, that it is not clear for the community.
>
>
>
> People in favor (or against) the proposal has not (including myself),
> re-stated their position or repeated the same arguments. Is not that an
> indication that they keep their previous position?
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Jordi
>
> @jordipalet
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> El 7/9/20 17:19, "anti-abuse-wg en nombre de Brian Nisbet" <
> anti-abuse-wg-boun...@ripe.net en nombre de brian.nis...@heanet.ie>
> escribió:
>
>
>
> Colleagues,
>
>
>
> A few weeks ago we reached the end of the latest review phase for 2019-04.
> The Co-Chairs have worked closely with the NCC Policy Development Office
> since then to try to make a decision on this policy. This email contains a
> report on the Discussion Phase and Review Phase and then a final decision
> which, we believe, is supported by the activity during those phases.
>
>
>
> As always, this is underpinned by the RIPE PDP -
> https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-710
> 
>
>
>
> Discussion Phase:
>
>
>
> There was some 

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Report & Co-Chair's Decision on Proposal 2019-04

[Brian Nisbet]

Jordi,

I'm not entirely certain that we would 100% agree here, but this may be nuance. 
We didn't do a direct mapping, but we did make an indicative assumption that 
opinions wouldn't have changed, while also considering what would have happened 
if those same people had said exactly the same thing in the Review Phase.

Effectively either of these two things would have had the same result for the 
decision on consensus.

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: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ 
Sent: Tuesday 8 September 2020 09:20
To: Brian Nisbet ; anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net 

Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Report & Co-Chair's Decision on Proposal 2019-04


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.


Hi Brian,



I understand that the people can change their mind, for example, after other 
comments or the IA, etc.



This is the same across different proposal versions, even editorial text 
changes. People can change their mind.



However not stating a “mind change”, should be taken as having changed their 
position. I understand that you agree on all that and your decision is based on 
that perspective?



(I want to make sure that language differences between English and Spanish are 
not an interpretation problem here)



Regards,

Jordi

@jordipalet







El 8/9/20 10:07, "Brian Nisbet" 
mailto:brian.nis...@heanet.ie>> escribió:



Jordi,



Under the PDP, given potential changes to the policy and inputs such as the 
Impact Analysis it is very difficult for the Co-Chairs to make assumptions 
about points of view as we move into the Review Phase, hence people will often 
restate their support or opposition to the policy, and indeed will often hark 
back to comments they have previously made.



Again, this is why we listed the comments from the Discussion Phase and the 
Co-Chairs feel, even if everyone had made those same comments, the Co-Chairs 
feel there was no clear consensus for change.



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: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ 
Sent: Tuesday 8 September 2020 08:58
To: Brian Nisbet ; anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net 

Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Report & Co-Chair's Decision on Proposal 2019-04



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.



Hi Brian, all,



First of all, tks for this detailed report. I’m still processing it.



However, I’ve a open question for you, which I think it has been also clear 
from other emails, that it is not clear for the community.



People in favor (or against) the proposal has not (including myself), re-stated 
their position or repeated the same arguments. Is not that an indication that 
they keep their previous position?



Regards,

Jordi

@jordipalet







El 7/9/20 17:19, "anti-abuse-wg en nombre de Brian Nisbet" 
mailto:anti-abuse-wg-boun...@ripe.net> en 
nombre de brian.nis...@heanet.ie> escribió:



Colleagues,



A few weeks ago we reached the end of the latest review phase for 2019-04. The 
Co-Chairs have worked closely with the NCC Policy Development Office since then 
to try to make a decision on this policy. This email contains a report on the 
Discussion Phase and Review Phase and then a final decision which, we believe, 
is supported by the activity during those phases.



As always, this is underpinned by the RIPE PDP - 
https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-710



Discussion Phase:



There was some clear support for the policy during the Discussion Phase. This 
came from:



Serge Droz, who felt that it would help in a number of cases and that an 
inability to answer an e-mail every six month probably indicated underlying 
issues. He also felt it would allow the community to understand who was doing 
good work and who wasn't, and it will prevent organisations from saying they 
never received a report. He also pointed out some of the difference in reaction 
between the security and 

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Report & Co-Chair's Decision on Proposal 2019-04

[JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via anti-abuse-wg]

Hi Brian,

 

I understand that the people can change their mind, for example, after other 
comments or the IA, etc.

 

This is the same across different proposal versions, even editorial text 
changes. People can change their mind.

 

However not stating a “mind change”, should be taken as having changed their 
position. I understand that you agree on all that and your decision is based on 
that perspective?

 

(I want to make sure that language differences between English and Spanish are 
not an interpretation problem here)

 

Regards,

Jordi

@jordipalet

 

 

 

El 8/9/20 10:07, "Brian Nisbet"  escribió:

 

Jordi,

 

Under the PDP, given potential changes to the policy and inputs such as the 
Impact Analysis it is very difficult for the Co-Chairs to make assumptions 
about points of view as we move into the Review Phase, hence people will often 
restate their support or opposition to the policy, and indeed will often hark 
back to comments they have previously made.

 

Again, this is why we listed the comments from the Discussion Phase and the 
Co-Chairs feel, even if everyone had made those same comments, the Co-Chairs 
feel there was no clear consensus for change.

 

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: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ 
Sent: Tuesday 8 September 2020 08:58
To: Brian Nisbet ; anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net 

Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Report & Co-Chair's Decision on Proposal 2019-04 

 

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.

 

Hi Brian, all,

 

First of all, tks for this detailed report. I’m still processing it.

 

However, I’ve a open question for you, which I think it has been also clear 
from other emails, that it is not clear for the community.

 

People in favor (or against) the proposal has not (including myself), re-stated 
their position or repeated the same arguments. Is not that an indication that 
they keep their previous position?

 

Regards,

Jordi

@jordipalet

 

 

 

El 7/9/20 17:19, "anti-abuse-wg en nombre de Brian Nisbet" 
 escribió:

 

Colleagues,

 

A few weeks ago we reached the end of the latest review phase for 2019-04. The 
Co-Chairs have worked closely with the NCC Policy Development Office since then 
to try to make a decision on this policy. This email contains a report on the 
Discussion Phase and Review Phase and then a final decision which, we believe, 
is supported by the activity during those phases.

 

As always, this is underpinned by the RIPE PDP - 
https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-710

 

Discussion Phase:

 

There was some clear support for the policy during the Discussion Phase. This 
came from:

 

Serge Droz, who felt that it would help in a number of cases and that an 
inability to answer an e-mail every six month probably indicated underlying 
issues. He also felt it would allow the community to understand who was doing 
good work and who wasn't, and it will prevent organisations from saying they 
never received a report. He also pointed out some of the difference in reaction 
between the security and operator communities on this policy.

 

Carlos Friacas, agreed that it would help, but not solve all problems. He also 
flagged that if "deregistration" was not a possible outcome for a continuous 
failure to validate, then the outcome of transparency would still be positive, 
but did say that must be balanced against the NCC Impact Analysis.

 

Jordi Palet Martinez, the proposer, was, of course, in favour, but also reacted 
to a number of voices against the proposal:

- The job of the RIPE NCC is to implement the policies agreed by the community. 
 I believe is perfectly understandable the need to avoid using manual forms 
which don't follow a single standard, which means extra work for *everyone*. 
(Responding to Nick Hilliard)

-  The actual policy has a bigger level of micro-management, by setting one 
year and not allowing the NCC to change that. (Responding to Nick Hilliard)

- The problem of a form is that is not standard. This is economically 
non-sustainable and means that the cost of the abuse cases is on the back of 
the one actually reporting. (Responding to No No)

- The actual validation is not working, it is just a technical validation 
(responding to Gert Doering)

- The community prefers to do things in steps, we initially asked for an abuse 
mailbox, we then added a technical validation, now we are asking for a better 
validation. I am not asking to verify if you handle abuse case or not and I am 
not asking to take any new actions.

 

Angel Gonzalez Berdasco suuported the proposal, but also made 

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Report & Co-Chair's Decision on Proposal 2019-04

[Brian Nisbet]

Jordi,

Under the PDP, given potential changes to the policy and inputs such as the 
Impact Analysis it is very difficult for the Co-Chairs to make assumptions 
about points of view as we move into the Review Phase, hence people will often 
restate their support or opposition to the policy, and indeed will often hark 
back to comments they have previously made.

Again, this is why we listed the comments from the Discussion Phase and the 
Co-Chairs feel, even if everyone had made those same comments, the Co-Chairs 
feel there was no clear consensus for change.

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: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ 
Sent: Tuesday 8 September 2020 08:58
To: Brian Nisbet ; anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net 

Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Report & Co-Chair's Decision on Proposal 2019-04


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.


Hi Brian, all,



First of all, tks for this detailed report. I’m still processing it.



However, I’ve a open question for you, which I think it has been also clear 
from other emails, that it is not clear for the community.



People in favor (or against) the proposal has not (including myself), re-stated 
their position or repeated the same arguments. Is not that an indication that 
they keep their previous position?



Regards,

Jordi

@jordipalet







El 7/9/20 17:19, "anti-abuse-wg en nombre de Brian Nisbet" 
mailto:anti-abuse-wg-boun...@ripe.net> en 
nombre de brian.nis...@heanet.ie> escribió:



Colleagues,



A few weeks ago we reached the end of the latest review phase for 2019-04. The 
Co-Chairs have worked closely with the NCC Policy Development Office since then 
to try to make a decision on this policy. This email contains a report on the 
Discussion Phase and Review Phase and then a final decision which, we believe, 
is supported by the activity during those phases.



As always, this is underpinned by the RIPE PDP - 
https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-710



Discussion Phase:



There was some clear support for the policy during the Discussion Phase. This 
came from:



Serge Droz, who felt that it would help in a number of cases and that an 
inability to answer an e-mail every six month probably indicated underlying 
issues. He also felt it would allow the community to understand who was doing 
good work and who wasn't, and it will prevent organisations from saying they 
never received a report. He also pointed out some of the difference in reaction 
between the security and operator communities on this policy.



Carlos Friacas, agreed that it would help, but not solve all problems. He also 
flagged that if "deregistration" was not a possible outcome for a continuous 
failure to validate, then the outcome of transparency would still be positive, 
but did say that must be balanced against the NCC Impact Analysis.



Jordi Palet Martinez, the proposer, was, of course, in favour, but also reacted 
to a number of voices against the proposal:

- The job of the RIPE NCC is to implement the policies agreed by the community. 
 I believe is perfectly understandable the need to avoid using manual forms 
which don't follow a single standard, which means extra work for *everyone*. 
(Responding to Nick Hilliard)

-  The actual policy has a bigger level of micro-management, by setting one 
year and not allowing the NCC to change that. (Responding to Nick Hilliard)

- The problem of a form is that is not standard. This is economically 
non-sustainable and means that the cost of the abuse cases is on the back of 
the one actually reporting. (Responding to No No)

- The actual validation is not working, it is just a technical validation 
(responding to Gert Doering)

- The community prefers to do things in steps, we initially asked for an abuse 
mailbox, we then added a technical validation, now we are asking for a better 
validation. I am not asking to verify if you handle abuse case or not and I am 
not asking to take any new actions.



Angel Gonzalez Berdasco suuported the proposal, but also made multiple comments 
on a different approach, including an abuse-uri and highlighted that 
standarising the communications was important.



A number of people spoke in clear opposition.



Nick Hilliard stated that it is not the job of the RIPE NCC 

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Report & Co-Chair's Decision on Proposal 2019-04

[Brian Nisbet]

As you will see in the report, we made mention of comments for, against and 
uncertain in both the Discussion Phase and the Review Phase. We took all of 
this into account in making our decision.

Even with your clarification of support in the Discussion Phase it still does 
not point at consensus being reached for this proposal.

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 JJS JJS 

Sent: Tuesday 8 September 2020 00:31
To: anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net 
Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Report & Co-Chair's Decision on Proposal 2019-04


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.


I am disputing your methodology in determining consensus.

If I didn't know that you expected me to offer support for this proposal, 
neither did anyone else.



___


On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 1:36 AM Brian Nisbet 
mailto:brian.nis...@heanet.ie>> wrote:
Thank you for the clarification, albeit I would ask you not to launch into 
attacks when doing so.

Even given that I do not believe it makes any difference to the overall 
decision from the Co-Chairs.

I would suggest that you look at the resources on 
https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies
 which explain the various phases.

Equally, the comments made during the Discussion Phase were taken into account.

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 
mailto:anti-abuse-wg-boun...@ripe.net>> on 
behalf of JJS JJS mailto:no0484...@gmail.com>>
Sent: Monday 7 September 2020 16:27
To: anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net 
mailto:anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net>>
Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Report & Co-Chair's Decision on Proposal 2019-04


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.


That fact that you classify my email as being on the "no" argument, shows how 
misguided you are.

Not for one second was I against this proposal, just the point about mandating 
emails.

There is no consensus "against" this proposal.

Your methodology of surveying views is so warped, it is unbelievable.

--


On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 1:19 AM Brian Nisbet 
mailto:brian.nis...@heanet.ie>> wrote:
Colleagues,

A few weeks ago we reached the end of the latest review phase for 2019-04. The 
Co-Chairs have worked closely with the NCC Policy Development Office since then 
to try to make a decision on this policy. This email contains a report on the 
Discussion Phase and Review Phase and then a final decision which, we believe, 
is supported by the activity during those phases.

As always, this is underpinned by the RIPE PDP - 
https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-710

Discussion Phase:

There was some clear support for the policy during the Discussion Phase. This 
came from:

Serge Droz, who felt that it would help in a number of cases and that an 
inability to answer an e-mail every six month probably indicated underlying 
issues. He also felt it would allow the community to understand who was doing 
good work and who wasn't, and it will prevent organisations from saying they 
never received a report. He also pointed out some of the difference in reaction 
between the security and operator communities on this policy.

Carlos Friacas, agreed that it would help, but not solve all problems. He also 
flagged that if "deregistration" was not a possible outcome for a continuous 
failure to validate, then the