Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-04 Policy Proposal Withdrawn (Validation of "abuse-mailbox")

2020-09-09 Thread Randy Bush 
> I disagree that it did not reach consensus. There was never any proper
> measure of whether it reached consensus.

i will admit to being lazy/busy and have not looked at pdp to confirm.
but ...

i believe that the way we measure consensus is by looking at the faces
of the co-chairs.  that's why they get the big .

the ietf keeps going around the concensus issue (going around in circles
is a deep expertise of the ietf).  rfc 7282 is a helpful product.

randy

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-04 Policy Proposal Withdrawn (Validation of "abuse-mailbox")

2020-09-09 Thread Brian Nisbet 
Jordi,

Thank you, yes, we're aware of that, and I know you know the PDP quite well, 
but I felt it was worth stating the relevant piece for others.

We will be back to you soon.

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: Wednesday 9 September 2020 10:21
To: Brian Nisbet ; anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net 

Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-04 Policy Proposal Withdrawn (Validation of 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


CAUTION[External]: This email originated from outside of the organisation. Do 
not click on links or open the attachments unless you recognise the sender and 
know the content is safe.


Hi Brian,



I’ve already sent you (and the co-chairs and policy officer) my rational for 
disagreement yesterday.



I’m not sure if I need to copy to the list (I will read the PDP for refreshing 
myself on the appeals process later on today) or how much I should wait for 
your response before (if needed, hopefully not), starting an appeal.



Regards,

Jordi

@jordipalet







El 9/9/20 10:54, "anti-abuse-wg en nombre de Brian Nisbet" 
mailto:anti-abuse-wg-boun...@ripe.net> en 
nombre de brian.nis...@heanet.ie> escribió:



Morning,



If you have specific disagreements with the Co-Chairs, then please contact us 
at aa-wg-ch...@ripe.net with the your reasoning for 2019-04 has reached 
consensus.



The appeals procedure beyond that is detailed in RIPE 710 and I have copied & 
pasted the specific paragraph here:



"If a grievance cannot be resolved with the chair of the WG the matter can be 
brought to the attention of the Working Group Chairs Collective (WGCC). Anyone 
may submit an appeal. This must be submitted to the relevant WG mailing list(s) 
and to the Policy Announce Mailing List (policy-annou...@ripe.net). The appeal 
will also be published by the RIPE NCC at appropriate locations on the RIPE web 
site. Any appeal should include a detailed and specific description of the 
issues and clearly explain why the appeal was submitted. An appeal must be 
submitted no later than four weeks after the appealable action has occurred.



The WGCC will decide by consensus whether to uphold or reject appeals which 
have been submitted. The decision of the WGCC should be reached no later than 
four weeks of an appeal being made. Interested parties shall recuse themselves 
from any discussion or decision within the WGCC relating to the appeal.



If the dispute cannot be resolved by the decision of the WGCC, the issue should 
be brought to the RIPE Chair. The decision of the RIPE Chair will be final."



The WGCC can be contacted at wg-cha...@ripe.net



However the first step is to contact the WG Chairs for AA-WG with an argument 
against our decision.



Thanks,



Brian

Co-Chair, RIPE AA-WG



Brian Nisbet

Service Operations Manager

HEAnet CLG, Ireland's National Education and Research Network

1st Floor, 5 George's Dock, IFSC, Dublin D01 X8N7, Ireland

+35316609040 brian.nis...@heanet.ie www.heanet.ie

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



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

Sent: Wednesday 9 September 2020 02:37
To: anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net 
Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-04 Policy Proposal Withdrawn (Validation of 
"abuse-mailbox")



CAUTION[External]: This email originated from outside of the organisation. Do 
not click on links or open the attachments unless you recognise the sender and 
know the content is safe.



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 
mailto:phas...@ripe.net>> 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





**
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new In

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

2020-09-09 Thread JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via anti-abuse-wg 
I don’t think this is correct, at least not for google, amazon, and other big 
providers, which I send email with abuses every other day and they react to it 
and resolve them.

 

 

El 8/9/20 16:33, "anti-abuse-wg en nombre de Alex de Joode" 
 escribió:

 

As abuse notices might have legal effect, a company could state they will only 
accept them by fax, or with registered mail. 

 

A webform, for a regulator, most likely will be seen as an 'upgrade'. Note that 
FB and Google also *only accept* complaints, notices etc via webforms. So one 
can argue a webform is abuse@ 2.0 :)​ So I do not share you view that a webform 
is a second rate instrument for accepting abuse notifications.

 

As for ECD/DSA that will most likely be subject to lobby forces beyond our 
imagination, so anything is possible there ... 

 

​-- 

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


On Tue, 08-09-2020 15h 51min, Carlos Friaças  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, this is underpinned by the RIPE PDP - 
> >> https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/rip

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

2020-09-09 Thread Ángel González Berdasco 
El mié, 09-09-2020 a las 08:52 +0200, Alessandro Vesely escribió:
> On Tue 08/Sep/2020 16:33:20 +0200 Alex de Joode wrote:
> > A webform, for a regulator, most likely will be seen as an
> > 'upgrade'. Note that FB and Google also *only accept* complaints,
> > notices etc via webforms. So one can argue a webform is abuse@ 2.0
> > :) So I do not share you view that a webform 
> > is a second rate instrument for accepting abuse notifications.
> 
> 
> IME that's not true.  I notice Google's auto-responses.  Perhaps, I
> should set up a web form myself for receiving such replies...?
> 
> Best
> Ale

Google does indeed accept abuse notifications via email. In some cases
there is even an API that can be used for reporting (e.g. Safe
Browsing). Plus I think the handling for Google Cloud may be quite
different to one about a service directly owned by Google.

The extent and speed to which reports are actioned is of course unknown
but they do take down abuse.

Best regards

-- 









 
  
  
 
 
  
  
   

TU AYUDA EN
CIBERSEGURIDAD
   
  
 
 
  

 
 
  
  INSTITUTO NACIONAL  DE CIBERSEGURIDAD

  

  SPANISH NATIONAL CYBERSECURITY INSTITUTE
  
  Ángel González Berdasco
  Técnico de Ciberseguridad de INCIBE-CERT
INCIBE-CERT Cybersecurity Technician
  angel.gonza...@incibe.es
  
  
 
 
  

 
 
  
  incibe.es
  
@INCIBE
  
  
  ℡ +34 987 877 189

  Av. José Aguado 41 / 24005 León / Spain
  
 
 
  

 
 
  

 
 
  
  En cumplimiento del Reglamento General de Protección de
  Datos de la UE (Reglamento UE 2016/679, de 27 de abril de 2016) le
informamos
  que sus datos personales, corporativos (así como los incorporados a
  documentos adjuntos); y dirección de correo electrónico, podrán ser
  incorporados en nuestros registros con la finalidad derivada de
obligaciones
  legales, contractuales o precontractuales o bien, para responder a
sus
  consultas, pudiendo ejercitar sus derechos de acceso, rectificación,
  supresión, portabilidad, limitación del tratamiento y oposición en
los
  términos establecidos en la legislación vigente y de manera gratuita
mediante
  correo electrónico a d...@incibe.es. El responsable del tratamiento es
la
  S.M.E. Instituto Nacional de Ciberseguridad de España M.P., S.A. Más
  información en nuestra web: Política de
  Protección de Datos Personales y Registro de actividad de
  tratamiento de datos personales.
  
 
 
  

  
 
 
  

 
 
  
  In compliance with the General Data Protection
  Regulation of the EU (Regulation EU 2016/679, of 27 April 2016) we
inform you
  that your personal and corporate data (as well as those included in
attached
  documents); and e-mail address, may be included in our records for
the
  purpose derived from legal, contractual or pre-contractual
obligations or in
  order to respond to your queries. You may exercise your rights of
access,
  correction, cancellation, portability, limitation of processing and
  opposition under the terms established by current legislation and
free of
  charge by sending an e-mail to d...@incibe.es. The Data Controller is
S.M.E.
  Instituto Nacional de Ciberseguridad de España, M.P., S.A. More
information
  is available on our website: Personal Data
  Protection Policy and Personal
  data processing activity log.

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

2020-09-09 Thread JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via anti-abuse-wg 
Hi Brian,

 

I’ve already sent you (and the co-chairs and policy officer) my rational for 
disagreement yesterday.

 

I’m not sure if I need to copy to the list (I will read the PDP for refreshing 
myself on the appeals process later on today) or how much I should wait for 
your response before (if needed, hopefully not), starting an appeal.

 

Regards,

Jordi

@jordipalet

 

 

 

El 9/9/20 10:54, "anti-abuse-wg en nombre de Brian Nisbet" 
 escribió:

 

Morning,

 

If you have specific disagreements with the Co-Chairs, then please contact us 
at aa-wg-ch...@ripe.net with the your reasoning for 2019-04 has reached 
consensus.

 

The appeals procedure beyond that is detailed in RIPE 710 and I have copied & 
pasted the specific paragraph here:

 

"If a grievance cannot be resolved with the chair of the WG the matter can be 
brought to the attention of the Working Group Chairs Collective (WGCC). Anyone 
may submit an appeal. This must be submitted to the relevant WG mailing list(s) 
and to the Policy Announce Mailing List (policy-annou...@ripe.net). The appeal 
will also be published by the RIPE NCC at appropriate locations on the RIPE web 
site. Any appeal should include a detailed and specific description of the 
issues and clearly explain why the appeal was submitted. An appeal must be 
submitted no later than four weeks after the appealable action has occurred. 

 

The WGCC will decide by consensus whether to uphold or reject appeals which 
have been submitted. The decision of the WGCC should be reached no later than 
four weeks of an appeal being made. Interested parties shall recuse themselves 
from any discussion or decision within the WGCC relating to the appeal.

 

If the dispute cannot be resolved by the decision of the WGCC, the issue should 
be brought to the RIPE Chair. The decision of the RIPE Chair will be final."

 

The WGCC can be contacted at wg-cha...@ripe.net

 

However the first step is to contact the WG Chairs for AA-WG with an argument 
against our decision.

 

Thanks,

 

Brian

Co-Chair, RIPE AA-WG

 

Brian Nisbet 

Service Operations Manager

HEAnet CLG, Ireland's National Education and Research Network

1st Floor, 5 George's Dock, IFSC, Dublin D01 X8N7, Ireland

+35316609040 brian.nis...@heanet.ie www.heanet.ie

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

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

Sent: Wednesday 9 September 2020 02:37
To: anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net 
Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-04 Policy Proposal Withdrawn (Validation of 
"abuse-mailbox") 

 

CAUTION[External]: This email originated from outside of the organisation. Do 
not click on links or open the attachments unless you recognise the sender and 
know the content is safe.

 

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







**
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.

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

2020-09-09 Thread Brian Nisbet 
Morning,

If you have specific disagreements with the Co-Chairs, then please contact us 
at aa-wg-ch...@ripe.net with the your reasoning for 2019-04 has reached 
consensus.

The appeals procedure beyond that is detailed in RIPE 710 and I have copied & 
pasted the specific paragraph here:

"If a grievance cannot be resolved with the chair of the WG the matter can be 
brought to the attention of the Working Group Chairs Collective (WGCC). Anyone 
may submit an appeal. This must be submitted to the relevant WG mailing list(s) 
and to the Policy Announce Mailing List (policy-annou...@ripe.net). The appeal 
will also be published by the RIPE NCC at appropriate locations on the RIPE web 
site. Any appeal should include a detailed and specific description of the 
issues and clearly explain why the appeal was submitted. An appeal must be 
submitted no later than four weeks after the appealable action has occurred.

The WGCC will decide by consensus whether to uphold or reject appeals which 
have been submitted. The decision of the WGCC should be reached no later than 
four weeks of an appeal being made. Interested parties shall recuse themselves 
from any discussion or decision within the WGCC relating to the appeal.

If the dispute cannot be resolved by the decision of the WGCC, the issue should 
be brought to the RIPE Chair. The decision of the RIPE Chair will be final."

The WGCC can be contacted at wg-cha...@ripe.net

However the first step is to contact the WG Chairs for AA-WG with an argument 
against our decision.

Thanks,

Brian
Co-Chair, RIPE AA-WG


Brian Nisbet

Service Operations Manager

HEAnet CLG, Ireland's National Education and Research Network

1st Floor, 5 George's Dock, IFSC, Dublin D01 X8N7, Ireland

+35316609040 brian.nis...@heanet.ie www.heanet.ie

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


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

Sent: Wednesday 9 September 2020 02:37
To: anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net 
Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-04 Policy Proposal Withdrawn (Validation of 
"abuse-mailbox")


CAUTION[External]: This email originated from outside of the organisation. Do 
not click on links or open the attachments unless you recognise the sender and 
know the content is safe.


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 
mailto:phas...@ripe.net>> 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