Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Draft Anti-Abuse WG Minutes from RIPE 81
Hi Tobias, On Thu 12/Nov/2020 16:28:58 +0100 Tobias Knecht wrote: Please see the draft minutes from our Anti-Abuse Working Group Session in 127.0.0.1. Please let us know about any objections or necessary corrections asap. Maybe it's me, but I cannot quite parse this sentence: From his own work experience, he confirmed that abuse handling is considered a security incident, there is a need for documentation to be able to convince managers. Perhaps "if abuse handling is to be considered a security matter..."? Best Ale --
Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Appeal against the Anti-Abuse WG Co-chairs decisions on proposal 2019-04 (Validation of “abuse-mailbox”)
Good idea! Let's also use a generic name 'Spammer' for contributors to this list. -- IDGARA | Alex de Joode | a...@idgara.nl | +31651108221 On Thu, 12-11-2020 13h 52min, PP wrote: > Is it possible to move a motion to rename this working group from Anti > Abuse WG to "The promotion of abuse working group"? > > Because this entire working group is a farce. > > > On 12/11/2020 11:31 pm, Angela Dall'Ara wrote: > > Dear Jordi, > > > > > > The WGCC task, as defined in Section 4 of the PDP, is it to determine > > “whether to uphold or reject appeals”. > > In addition to that, in this first occurrence of an appeal being > > submitted, they chose to provide an extended explanation to you and > > the community, > > which is strictly speaking not necessary and is not part of the > > appeals process. > > > > However, I would like to convey here below the answers to your > > requests for clarification about the WGCC appeal outcome communication. > > > > I suggest we close this appeal, unless you decide to escalate to the > > RIPE Chair within the next two weeks. > > Should you have any more question, please contact me directly and I > > will be glad to assist. > > > > > > Kind regards, > > > > Angela Dall'Ara > > RIPE NCC Policy Officer > > > > > > Summary > > === > > > > The WGCC does not find sufficient reason to overturn the ruling of > > the Anti-Abuse WG chairs on proposal 2019-04 (Validation of > > "abuse-mailbox"). > > > > If Jordi wishes to bring a new proposal that he thinks may achieve > > consensus, we note that 2019-04 was being considered during an > > unusual > > time, when we have not had face-to-face meetings due to the COVID-19 > > pandemic. So it faced difficulties not normally facing a policy > > proposal. As always, the Anti-Abuse WG chairs may decide not to adopt > > any new proposal. > > > > [Jordi] Could you clarify this paragraph; I can't parse it. > > > > [Answer]: It basically says that you or anyone else may decide to > > submit a > > new proposal and that it has been recognised that these are unusual > > times due to COVID-19. > > > > Scope > > = > > > > The WGCC considers the appeal process to be solely to determine if > > the > > working group chairs made a reasonable declaration of consensus or > > lack of consensus. > > > > The appeal process is able review whether the process was > > followed, or > > whether there was bias shown in the declaration. > > > > The appeal process will not re-visit any of the points for or against > > the proposal. > > > > [Jordi] Following the PDP, I can't agree with this. Can you clarify? > > > > [Answer]: During an appeal, the WGCC determine whether the process has > > been > > followed or not. They do not need to review content of the discussion > > related to the proposal. > > > > > > Discussion During the Review Phase > > -- > > > > The need to re-state opinions was explicitly mentioned in the e-mail > > moving the policy proposal to the review phase. It is unfortunate > > that > > the importance of this was not clear to Jordi. Possibly in the future > > this can be highlighted in some way. > > > > [Jordi] This is against the PDP. The chairs can even say I must sing a > > song, but the only valid process is the one CLEARLY STATED in the PDP. > > Nothing else. Otherwise there is a clear subjectivity in the process > > which invalidates it. > > > > [Answer]: Exactly. And the PDP does not require the WG Chairs to do > > anything > > during the Review Phase. The explicit invite to re-state opinions > > was an extra service. > > > > > > New Policy Proposal > > --- > > > > In principle there is nothing to prevent Jordi or anyone else from > > submitting an updated version of 2019-04. However, in the Address > > Policy working group having submitted an unsuccessful policy proposal > > did prejudice the working group against accepting other submissions. > > So there is some possible concern that an updated version would > > have a > > more difficult time. > > > > There are many factors to balance when deciding what proposals to > > accept, and the work of balancing them is up to the working group > > chairs. So we do _not_ explicitly request that the Anti-Abuse working > > group chairs adopt any subsequent policy proposals. We _do_ ask that > > they give extra consideration to the unusual circumstances that we > > are > > attempting to make policies in. > > > > We do not have any recommendation to Jordi whether he or anyone else > > should submit an updated version of 2019-04. > > > > [Jordi] I can't parse this. It looks contradictory. Previous text seems > > that is ok to the co-chairs to reject a new version, but here it is > > clearly stated that anyone can do it? Are we talking about a new version > > of the
[anti-abuse-wg] Draft Anti-Abuse WG Minutes from RIPE 81
Hi there, Please see the draft minutes from our Anti-Abuse Working Group Session in 127.0.0.1. Please let us know about any objections or necessary corrections asap. Thanks and stay safe, Tobias Co-Chair, RIPE AA-WG -- | Tobias Knecht | CEO | Abusix, Inc. | t...@abusix.com | http://abusix.com | mobile_eu: +49 170 455 98 45 --- CONFIDENTIALITY This e-mail and any attachments are confidential and may also be privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure. If you are not the named recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to another person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information in any medium. -- Draft Anti-Abuse WG Minutes RIPE 81.docx Description: MS-Word 2007 document
Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Appeal against the Anti-Abuse WG Co-chairs decisions on proposal 2019-04 (Validation of “abuse-mailbox”)
Is it possible to move a motion to rename this working group from Anti Abuse WG to "The promotion of abuse working group"? Because this entire working group is a farce. On 12/11/2020 11:31 pm, Angela Dall'Ara wrote: Dear Jordi, The WGCC task, as defined in Section 4 of the PDP, is it to determine “whether to uphold or reject appeals”. In addition to that, in this first occurrence of an appeal being submitted, they chose to provide an extended explanation to you and the community, which is strictly speaking not necessary and is not part of the appeals process. However, I would like to convey here below the answers to your requests for clarification about the WGCC appeal outcome communication. I suggest we close this appeal, unless you decide to escalate to the RIPE Chair within the next two weeks. Should you have any more question, please contact me directly and I will be glad to assist. Kind regards, Angela Dall'Ara RIPE NCC Policy Officer Summary === The WGCC does not find sufficient reason to overturn the ruling of the Anti-Abuse WG chairs on proposal 2019-04 (Validation of "abuse-mailbox"). If Jordi wishes to bring a new proposal that he thinks may achieve consensus, we note that 2019-04 was being considered during an unusual time, when we have not had face-to-face meetings due to the COVID-19 pandemic. So it faced difficulties not normally facing a policy proposal. As always, the Anti-Abuse WG chairs may decide not to adopt any new proposal. [Jordi] Could you clarify this paragraph; I can't parse it. [Answer]: It basically says that you or anyone else may decide to submit a new proposal and that it has been recognised that these are unusual times due to COVID-19. Scope = The WGCC considers the appeal process to be solely to determine if the working group chairs made a reasonable declaration of consensus or lack of consensus. The appeal process is able review whether the process was followed, or whether there was bias shown in the declaration. The appeal process will not re-visit any of the points for or against the proposal. [Jordi] Following the PDP, I can't agree with this. Can you clarify? [Answer]: During an appeal, the WGCC determine whether the process has been followed or not. They do not need to review content of the discussion related to the proposal. Discussion During the Review Phase -- The need to re-state opinions was explicitly mentioned in the e-mail moving the policy proposal to the review phase. It is unfortunate that the importance of this was not clear to Jordi. Possibly in the future this can be highlighted in some way. [Jordi] This is against the PDP. The chairs can even say I must sing a song, but the only valid process is the one CLEARLY STATED in the PDP. Nothing else. Otherwise there is a clear subjectivity in the process which invalidates it. [Answer]: Exactly. And the PDP does not require the WG Chairs to do anything during the Review Phase. The explicit invite to re-state opinions was an extra service. New Policy Proposal --- In principle there is nothing to prevent Jordi or anyone else from submitting an updated version of 2019-04. However, in the Address Policy working group having submitted an unsuccessful policy proposal did prejudice the working group against accepting other submissions. So there is some possible concern that an updated version would have a more difficult time. There are many factors to balance when deciding what proposals to accept, and the work of balancing them is up to the working group chairs. So we do _not_ explicitly request that the Anti-Abuse working group chairs adopt any subsequent policy proposals. We _do_ ask that they give extra consideration to the unusual circumstances that we are attempting to make policies in. We do not have any recommendation to Jordi whether he or anyone else should submit an updated version of 2019-04. [Jordi] I can't parse this. It looks contradictory. Previous text seems that is ok to the co-chairs to reject a new version, but here it is clearly stated that anyone can do it? Are we talking about a new version of the same proposal or a new proposal? [Answer]: It means it is up to you (or anyone else) to consider submitting a NEW proposal. And it is up to the WG chairs of the respective WG to accept such a new proposal or not. Appeal discussion - [Jordi] 3 co-chairs have recused themselves. Is that meaning that all the discussion has been done in a different mailing list apart from the WGCC ? [Answer]: The discussion has been done on Zoom meetings, not on the WGCC mailing list. On 26/10/2020 09:50, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via anti-abuse-wg wrote: There is also another point that I will like to r
Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Appeal against the Anti-Abuse WG Co-chairs decisions on proposal 2019-04 (Validation of “abuse-mailbox”)
Dear Jordi, The WGCC task, as defined in Section 4 of the PDP, is it to determine “whether to uphold or reject appeals”. In addition to that, in this first occurrence of an appeal being submitted, they chose to provide an extended explanation to you and the community, which is strictly speaking not necessary and is not part of the appeals process. However, I would like to convey here below the answers to your requests for clarification about the WGCC appeal outcome communication. I suggest we close this appeal, unless you decide to escalate to the RIPE Chair within the next two weeks. Should you have any more question, please contact me directly and I will be glad to assist. Kind regards, Angela Dall'Ara RIPE NCC Policy Officer Summary === The WGCC does not find sufficient reason to overturn the ruling of the Anti-Abuse WG chairs on proposal 2019-04 (Validation of "abuse-mailbox"). If Jordi wishes to bring a new proposal that he thinks may achieve consensus, we note that 2019-04 was being considered during an unusual time, when we have not had face-to-face meetings due to the COVID-19 pandemic. So it faced difficulties not normally facing a policy proposal. As always, the Anti-Abuse WG chairs may decide not to adopt any new proposal. [Jordi] Could you clarify this paragraph; I can't parse it. [Answer]: It basically says that you or anyone else may decide to submit a new proposal and that it has been recognised that these are unusual times due to COVID-19. Scope = The WGCC considers the appeal process to be solely to determine if the working group chairs made a reasonable declaration of consensus or lack of consensus. The appeal process is able review whether the process was followed, or whether there was bias shown in the declaration. The appeal process will not re-visit any of the points for or against the proposal. [Jordi] Following the PDP, I can't agree with this. Can you clarify? [Answer]: During an appeal, the WGCC determine whether the process has been followed or not. They do not need to review content of the discussion related to the proposal. Discussion During the Review Phase -- The need to re-state opinions was explicitly mentioned in the e-mail moving the policy proposal to the review phase. It is unfortunate that the importance of this was not clear to Jordi. Possibly in the future this can be highlighted in some way. [Jordi] This is against the PDP. The chairs can even say I must sing a song, but the only valid process is the one CLEARLY STATED in the PDP. Nothing else. Otherwise there is a clear subjectivity in the process which invalidates it. [Answer]: Exactly. And the PDP does not require the WG Chairs to do anything during the Review Phase. The explicit invite to re-state opinions was an extra service. New Policy Proposal --- In principle there is nothing to prevent Jordi or anyone else from submitting an updated version of 2019-04. However, in the Address Policy working group having submitted an unsuccessful policy proposal did prejudice the working group against accepting other submissions. So there is some possible concern that an updated version would have a more difficult time. There are many factors to balance when deciding what proposals to accept, and the work of balancing them is up to the working group chairs. So we do _not_ explicitly request that the Anti-Abuse working group chairs adopt any subsequent policy proposals. We _do_ ask that they give extra consideration to the unusual circumstances that we are attempting to make policies in. We do not have any recommendation to Jordi whether he or anyone else should submit an updated version of 2019-04. [Jordi] I can't parse this. It looks contradictory. Previous text seems that is ok to the co-chairs to reject a new version, but here it is clearly stated that anyone can do it? Are we talking about a new version of the same proposal or a new proposal? [Answer]: It means it is up to you (or anyone else) to consider submitting a NEW proposal. And it is up to the WG chairs of the respective WG to accept such a new proposal or not. Appeal discussion - [Jordi] 3 co-chairs have recused themselves. Is that meaning that all the discussion has been done in a different mailing list apart from the WGCC ? [Answer]: The discussion has been done on Zoom meetings, not on the WGCC mailing list. On 26/10/2020 09:50, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via anti-abuse-wg wrote: There is also another point that I will like to rise and I just noticed, and this is very relevant not just because this appeal, but because the appeal process itself. 3 co-chairs have recused themselves. Is that meaning that all the discussion has been done in a different mailing lis
