Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Astroturfing?
aaargh! now you have gone and done it, look what you have now forced me to do, again: +1 (roflmao) On Thu, 04 Apr 2019 10:50:56 +0530 Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > It doesn't matter, mate. We are all astroturfers eh. > > +1. > > On 04/04/19, 10:36 AM, "anti-abuse-wg on behalf of ac" > wrote: > > > +1 > > (and if the +1 is not clear: It means I agree and I have nothing > to add. If I am pressed to add a comment, to explain my +1 I would > venture to say that I agree with what was said because I know there > are very few people actively tracking BGP jacking. I also know that > some of those that do track it have spoken out so I agree completely > that identifying experts and testimony of actual cases will not be > one of the top issues faced by the registry. I hope that my +1 will > therefore be accepted as a simple +1 as I have nothing more to add > than simply repeating what has been said and stating my agreement > thereof. If my +1 is not acceptable or does not count as much, > because I have not fully explained my agreement to what was said I > would appreciate that being pointed out to myself) > > On Wed, 03 Apr 2019 19:57:35 +0530 > Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > > > There are very few people who actively track BGP hijacks, the > > world over - even among the larger community of network > > security folks. > > > > More than one of those individuals is on this mailing list and > > has spoken up during the discussion. > > > > Identifying experts to detect and attest to cases of hijacking > > will be the least of RIPE NCC's problems. > > > > On 03/04/19, 7:50 PM, "anti-abuse-wg on behalf of Pavel > > Vraštiak" > vrast...@itself.cz> wrote: > > > > I, for instance, subscribed to this list to express my > > support for the proposal. After reviewing the comments I can > > say that the only thing that we can (hopefully) agree on is > > that BGP hijacks are generally bad and we would prefer > > technical solution instead of policy. > > I think that the idea of this proposal is good and I also > > think that it could make some small difference (in a good way). > > The questionable part is the process of choosing experts and > > impact on the RIPE NCC budget. Looking forward to v2.0. > > > > -- > > > > Pavel > > > > On 03. 04. 19 15:21, Sascha Luck [ml] wrote: > > > On Wed, Apr 03, 2019 at 12:52:45PM +0100, Carlos Friaas > > > via anti-abuse-wg wrote: > > >> Just like a few days ago i wrote that i hoped there > > >> wasn't any kind of discrimination against portuguese > > >> participants, i hope there isn't also any kind of > > >> discrimination against new participants on this WG. > > > > > > Please provide evidence for your insinuation that anyone > > > here discriminates against Portuguese (or any other > > > nationality for that matter.) I can't but regard such an > > > insinuation as a cheap rhetorical trick. > > > > > >> I may understand if some people prefer to have less > > >> people in the WG, but i'm not part of that set. > > >> While worrying about how we can improve rules/tools > > >> against Abuse (that's the point of an Anti-Abuse WG, > > >> right?), i would also like to see a much larger number > > >> of people involved! > > > > > > I've long argued that all policy should only be discussed > > > in ap-wg as I don't think this limited an audience should > > > make policy with far-reaching consequences. Alas, > > > everyone wants to rule in Hell rather than serve in > > > Heaven. > > >> If someone has any doubt about if newcomers are real > > >> persons, then please Google away. :-) > > > > > > Well, that gives me: > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sockpuppet_(Internet)#Meatpuppet > > > > > > So the term "Astroturfing" is technically incorrect as > > > that implies fictitious entities with some commercial > > > interest behind it. > > > Nobody has said that and new participants are always > > > welcome, the more know about this the better. > > > However: If someone shows up here only to add a "+1" to a > > > proposal and is then never heard from again, I don't > > > think their support should carry much weight. I trust the > > > chairs to consider this, of course. > > > > > > > > > rgds, > > > SL > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> On Wed, 3 Apr 2019, Michele Neylon - Blacknight wrote: > > >> > > >>> All > > >>> > > >>> Is someone encouraging
Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Astroturfing?
It doesn't matter, mate. We are all astroturfers eh. +1. On 04/04/19, 10:36 AM, "anti-abuse-wg on behalf of ac" wrote: +1 (and if the +1 is not clear: It means I agree and I have nothing to add. If I am pressed to add a comment, to explain my +1 I would venture to say that I agree with what was said because I know there are very few people actively tracking BGP jacking. I also know that some of those that do track it have spoken out so I agree completely that identifying experts and testimony of actual cases will not be one of the top issues faced by the registry. I hope that my +1 will therefore be accepted as a simple +1 as I have nothing more to add than simply repeating what has been said and stating my agreement thereof. If my +1 is not acceptable or does not count as much, because I have not fully explained my agreement to what was said I would appreciate that being pointed out to myself) On Wed, 03 Apr 2019 19:57:35 +0530 Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > There are very few people who actively track BGP hijacks, the world > over - even among the larger community of network security folks. > > More than one of those individuals is on this mailing list and has > spoken up during the discussion. > > Identifying experts to detect and attest to cases of hijacking will > be the least of RIPE NCC's problems. > > On 03/04/19, 7:50 PM, "anti-abuse-wg on behalf of Pavel Vraštiak" > > wrote: > > I, for instance, subscribed to this list to express my support > for the proposal. After reviewing the comments I can say that the > only thing that we can (hopefully) agree on is that BGP hijacks are > generally bad and we would prefer technical solution instead of > policy. > I think that the idea of this proposal is good and I also think > that it could make some small difference (in a good way). The > questionable part is the process of choosing experts and impact on > the RIPE NCC budget. Looking forward to v2.0. > > -- > > Pavel > > On 03. 04. 19 15:21, Sascha Luck [ml] wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 03, 2019 at 12:52:45PM +0100, Carlos Friaas via > > anti-abuse-wg wrote: > >> Just like a few days ago i wrote that i hoped there wasn't any > >> kind of discrimination against portuguese participants, i hope > >> there isn't also any kind of discrimination against new > >> participants on this WG. > > > > Please provide evidence for your insinuation that anyone here > > discriminates against Portuguese (or any other nationality for > > that matter.) I can't but regard such an insinuation as a cheap > > rhetorical trick. > > > >> I may understand if some people prefer to have less people in > >> the WG, but i'm not part of that set. > >> While worrying about how we can improve rules/tools against > >> Abuse (that's the point of an Anti-Abuse WG, right?), i would > >> also like to see a much larger number of people involved! > > > > I've long argued that all policy should only be discussed in > > ap-wg as I don't think this limited an audience should make > > policy with far-reaching consequences. Alas, everyone wants to > > rule in Hell rather than serve in Heaven. > > > >> If someone has any doubt about if newcomers are real persons, > >> then please Google away. :-) > > > > Well, that gives me: > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sockpuppet_(Internet)#Meatpuppet > > > > So the term "Astroturfing" is technically incorrect as that > > implies fictitious entities with some commercial interest behind > > it. > > Nobody has said that and new participants are always welcome, > > the more know about this the better. > > However: If someone shows up here only to add a "+1" to a > > proposal and is then never heard from again, I don't think their > > support should carry much weight. I trust the chairs to consider > > this, of course. > > > > > > rgds, > > SL > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> On Wed, 3 Apr 2019, Michele Neylon - Blacknight wrote: > >> > >>> All > >>> > >>> Is someone encouraging astroturfing? > >>> > >>> The number of either new or inactive members of this list who > >>> have posted one line messages in support of the recent policy > >>> discussion has reached insane levels > >>> > >>> Regards > >>> > >>> Michele > >>> > >>> -- > >>> Mr Michele Neylon > >>> Blacknight So
Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Astroturfing?
+1 (and if the +1 is not clear: It means I agree and I have nothing to add. If I am pressed to add a comment, to explain my +1 I would venture to say that I agree with what was said because I know there are very few people actively tracking BGP jacking. I also know that some of those that do track it have spoken out so I agree completely that identifying experts and testimony of actual cases will not be one of the top issues faced by the registry. I hope that my +1 will therefore be accepted as a simple +1 as I have nothing more to add than simply repeating what has been said and stating my agreement thereof. If my +1 is not acceptable or does not count as much, because I have not fully explained my agreement to what was said I would appreciate that being pointed out to myself) On Wed, 03 Apr 2019 19:57:35 +0530 Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > There are very few people who actively track BGP hijacks, the world > over - even among the larger community of network security folks. > > More than one of those individuals is on this mailing list and has > spoken up during the discussion. > > Identifying experts to detect and attest to cases of hijacking will > be the least of RIPE NCC's problems. > > On 03/04/19, 7:50 PM, "anti-abuse-wg on behalf of Pavel Vraštiak" > > wrote: > > I, for instance, subscribed to this list to express my support > for the proposal. After reviewing the comments I can say that the > only thing that we can (hopefully) agree on is that BGP hijacks are > generally bad and we would prefer technical solution instead of > policy. > I think that the idea of this proposal is good and I also think > that it could make some small difference (in a good way). The > questionable part is the process of choosing experts and impact on > the RIPE NCC budget. Looking forward to v2.0. > > -- > > Pavel > > On 03. 04. 19 15:21, Sascha Luck [ml] wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 03, 2019 at 12:52:45PM +0100, Carlos Friaas via > > anti-abuse-wg wrote: > >> Just like a few days ago i wrote that i hoped there wasn't any > >> kind of discrimination against portuguese participants, i hope > >> there isn't also any kind of discrimination against new > >> participants on this WG. > > > > Please provide evidence for your insinuation that anyone here > > discriminates against Portuguese (or any other nationality for > > that matter.) I can't but regard such an insinuation as a cheap > > rhetorical trick. > > > >> I may understand if some people prefer to have less people in > >> the WG, but i'm not part of that set. > >> While worrying about how we can improve rules/tools against > >> Abuse (that's the point of an Anti-Abuse WG, right?), i would > >> also like to see a much larger number of people involved! > > > > I've long argued that all policy should only be discussed in > > ap-wg as I don't think this limited an audience should make > > policy with far-reaching consequences. Alas, everyone wants to > > rule in Hell rather than serve in Heaven. > > > >> If someone has any doubt about if newcomers are real persons, > >> then please Google away. :-) > > > > Well, that gives me: > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sockpuppet_(Internet)#Meatpuppet > > > > So the term "Astroturfing" is technically incorrect as that > > implies fictitious entities with some commercial interest behind > > it. > > Nobody has said that and new participants are always welcome, > > the more know about this the better. > > However: If someone shows up here only to add a "+1" to a > > proposal and is then never heard from again, I don't think their > > support should carry much weight. I trust the chairs to consider > > this, of course. > > > > > > rgds, > > SL > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> On Wed, 3 Apr 2019, Michele Neylon - Blacknight wrote: > >> > >>> All > >>> > >>> Is someone encouraging astroturfing? > >>> > >>> The number of either new or inactive members of this list who > >>> have posted one line messages in support of the recent policy > >>> discussion has reached insane levels > >>> > >>> Regards > >>> > >>> Michele > >>> > >>> -- > >>> Mr Michele Neylon > >>> Blacknight Solutions > >>> Hosting, Colocation & Domains > >>> https://www.blacknight.com/ > >>> https://blacknight.blog/ > >>> Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 > >>> Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 > >>> Personal blog: https://michele.blog/ > >>> Some thoughts: https://ceo.hosting/ > >>> --- > >>> Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside > >>> Business Park,Sleaty > >>> Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Company No.: > >>> 370845 > >>> > >>> > > > > >
Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Astroturfing? -- was 2019-03
Hi, (please see inline) On Wed, 3 Apr 2019, Sascha Luck [ml] wrote: (...) That may have just been because those have been seen here before. That said, I agree with the general statement. Rather than "+1" every supporter should provide *some* evidence that they've at least *read* the proposal. For the avoidance of doubt, this means *every* supporter, regardless of nationality or length of subscription. I think that was already clarified. Agreement is agreement. If you are trying to come up with a new rule, then you can write a new policy proposal about that... :-) (...) It used to be until the charter was changed. I didn't agree with that then, I don't agree with it now. For exactly the reasons that are now becoming evident. You want everyone to discuss by your own set of rules -- that's clear. (...) Not all. Only those who suddenly turn up, "+1" and then disappear again, as they undoubtedly will (or perhaps until *your* next proposal comes up?) https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/current-proposals I'm also the co-author of 2019-02. Unfortunately the support for that one is rather smaller. You can go and check that thread. You might want also to check what the other 2019-02 co-author (Sander) stated about 2019-03. I'm not going reply with a different Wikipedia URL, but i suspect you know which one i'm thinking about :-)) No, I don't have a clue. Enlighten me? Not going there, sorry. It doesn't serve the purpose of discussing 2019-03. (...) What I do not welcome is "support" that takes the form of subscribing here, plonking down "+1" and then vanishing into obscurity again. Which is (at least the Wikipedia) definition of a meat-puppet. Name-calling targeted at multiple people. Not very useful. (...) Easy. judge the worth of support at least in part on previous contributions, and I fervently hope this is what the chairs are doing. You don't like/accept people supporting a proposal you don't like. That's not useful to discuss the proposal itself too. (...) If not, I would like the opportunity to rise a hundred opponents to each provide a "-1"... Then talk to people, explain them why they should oppose the proposal, and wait for them to subscribe to the list and tell everybody what are exactly their concerns about the proposal. Cheers, Carlos rgds, SL
Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Astroturfing?
There are very few people who actively track BGP hijacks, the world over - even among the larger community of network security folks. More than one of those individuals is on this mailing list and has spoken up during the discussion. Identifying experts to detect and attest to cases of hijacking will be the least of RIPE NCC's problems. On 03/04/19, 7:50 PM, "anti-abuse-wg on behalf of Pavel Vraštiak" wrote: I, for instance, subscribed to this list to express my support for the proposal. After reviewing the comments I can say that the only thing that we can (hopefully) agree on is that BGP hijacks are generally bad and we would prefer technical solution instead of policy. I think that the idea of this proposal is good and I also think that it could make some small difference (in a good way). The questionable part is the process of choosing experts and impact on the RIPE NCC budget. Looking forward to v2.0. -- Pavel On 03. 04. 19 15:21, Sascha Luck [ml] wrote: > On Wed, Apr 03, 2019 at 12:52:45PM +0100, Carlos Friaas via > anti-abuse-wg wrote: >> Just like a few days ago i wrote that i hoped there wasn't any kind of >> discrimination against portuguese participants, i hope there isn't >> also any kind of discrimination against new participants on this WG. > > Please provide evidence for your insinuation that anyone here > discriminates against Portuguese (or any other nationality for > that matter.) I can't but regard such an insinuation as a cheap > rhetorical trick. > >> I may understand if some people prefer to have less people in the WG, >> but i'm not part of that set. >> While worrying about how we can improve rules/tools against Abuse >> (that's the point of an Anti-Abuse WG, right?), i would also like to >> see a much larger number of people involved! > > I've long argued that all policy should only be discussed in > ap-wg as I don't think this limited an audience should make > policy with far-reaching consequences. Alas, everyone wants to > rule in Hell rather than serve in Heaven. > >> If someone has any doubt about if newcomers are real persons, then >> please Google away. :-) > > Well, that gives me: > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sockpuppet_(Internet)#Meatpuppet > > So the term "Astroturfing" is technically incorrect as that > implies fictitious entities with some commercial interest behind > it. > Nobody has said that and new participants are always welcome, the > more know about this the better. > However: If someone shows up here only to add a "+1" to a > proposal and is then never heard from again, I don't think their > support should carry much weight. I trust the chairs to consider > this, of course. > > > rgds, > SL >> >> >> >> >> On Wed, 3 Apr 2019, Michele Neylon - Blacknight wrote: >> >>> All >>> >>> Is someone encouraging astroturfing? >>> >>> The number of either new or inactive members of this list who have >>> posted one line messages in support of the recent policy discussion >>> has reached insane levels >>> >>> Regards >>> >>> Michele >>> >>> -- >>> Mr Michele Neylon >>> Blacknight Solutions >>> Hosting, Colocation & Domains >>> https://www.blacknight.com/ >>> https://blacknight.blog/ >>> Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 >>> Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 >>> Personal blog: https://michele.blog/ >>> Some thoughts: https://ceo.hosting/ >>> --- >>> Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business >>> Park,Sleaty >>> Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Company No.: 370845 >>> >>> > >
Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Astroturfing?
I, for instance, subscribed to this list to express my support for the proposal. After reviewing the comments I can say that the only thing that we can (hopefully) agree on is that BGP hijacks are generally bad and we would prefer technical solution instead of policy. I think that the idea of this proposal is good and I also think that it could make some small difference (in a good way). The questionable part is the process of choosing experts and impact on the RIPE NCC budget. Looking forward to v2.0. -- Pavel On 03. 04. 19 15:21, Sascha Luck [ml] wrote: > On Wed, Apr 03, 2019 at 12:52:45PM +0100, Carlos Friaas via > anti-abuse-wg wrote: >> Just like a few days ago i wrote that i hoped there wasn't any kind of >> discrimination against portuguese participants, i hope there isn't >> also any kind of discrimination against new participants on this WG. > > Please provide evidence for your insinuation that anyone here > discriminates against Portuguese (or any other nationality for > that matter.) I can't but regard such an insinuation as a cheap > rhetorical trick. > >> I may understand if some people prefer to have less people in the WG, >> but i'm not part of that set. >> While worrying about how we can improve rules/tools against Abuse >> (that's the point of an Anti-Abuse WG, right?), i would also like to >> see a much larger number of people involved! > > I've long argued that all policy should only be discussed in > ap-wg as I don't think this limited an audience should make > policy with far-reaching consequences. Alas, everyone wants to > rule in Hell rather than serve in Heaven. > >> If someone has any doubt about if newcomers are real persons, then >> please Google away. :-) > > Well, that gives me: > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sockpuppet_(Internet)#Meatpuppet > > So the term "Astroturfing" is technically incorrect as that > implies fictitious entities with some commercial interest behind > it. > Nobody has said that and new participants are always welcome, the > more know about this the better. > However: If someone shows up here only to add a "+1" to a > proposal and is then never heard from again, I don't think their > support should carry much weight. I trust the chairs to consider > this, of course. > > > rgds, > SL >> >> >> >> >> On Wed, 3 Apr 2019, Michele Neylon - Blacknight wrote: >> >>> All >>> >>> Is someone encouraging astroturfing? >>> >>> The number of either new or inactive members of this list who have >>> posted one line messages in support of the recent policy discussion >>> has reached insane levels >>> >>> Regards >>> >>> Michele >>> >>> -- >>> Mr Michele Neylon >>> Blacknight Solutions >>> Hosting, Colocation & Domains >>> https://www.blacknight.com/ >>> https://blacknight.blog/ >>> Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 >>> Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 >>> Personal blog: https://michele.blog/ >>> Some thoughts: https://ceo.hosting/ >>> --- >>> Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business >>> Park,Sleaty >>> Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Company No.: 370845 >>> >>> > >
Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Astroturfing?
On Wed, Apr 03, 2019 at 02:47:27PM +0100, Carlos Friaas wrote: Too easy (you might have missed this one...): Dear group members from Portugal stated your support for 2019-03, Can you please provide some more arguments than your humble "+1" statement? This is a working group, not a voting. While it may have been better to address all the "+1" crowd, I'm not sure this constitutes *discrimination*. The message was directed to a "group members from Portugal". Members from IE, IL, US, CZ and so on that made brief statements of support were left out of this request. I can't understand why. That may have just been because those have been seen here before. That said, I agree with the general statement. Rather than "+1" every supporter should provide *some* evidence that they've at least *read* the proposal. For the avoidance of doubt, this means *every* supporter, regardless of nationality or length of subscription. (...) I've long argued that all policy should only be discussed in ap-wg as I don't think this limited an audience should make policy with far-reaching consequences. Alas, everyone wants to rule in Hell rather than serve in Heaven. What you argue is _not_ "current rules" or the PDP. It used to be until the charter was changed. I didn't agree with that then, I don't agree with it now. For exactly the reasons that are now becoming evident. Well, that gives me: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sockpuppet_(Internet)#Meatpuppet So the term "Astroturfing" is technically incorrect as that implies fictitious entities with some commercial interest behind it. So you're now going further than attacking one nationality, aiming at all those who expressed support for 2019-03? (i.e. disagreeing with your view). Not all. Only those who suddenly turn up, "+1" and then disappear again, as they undoubtedly will (or perhaps until *your* next proposal comes up?) I'm not going reply with a different Wikipedia URL, but i suspect you know which one i'm thinking about :-)) No, I don't have a clue. Enlighten me? Nobody has said that and new participants are always welcome, the more know about this the better. It's not only about "knowing" it's also being able to support or oppose any proposal (present or future). For me the keyword is "participation". That was implied. My contention is (and I've been expressing that many times before) that this wg is not representative of the RIPE community but to only a small element of it namely "anti-abuse warriors". Thus I would very much welcome increased participation in this wg because whatever gets cooked up here affects ALL OF US. What I do not welcome is "support" that takes the form of subscribing here, plonking down "+1" and then vanishing into obscurity again. Which is (at least the Wikipedia) definition of a meat-puppet. You might be rushing to judgements. You might draw that conclusion if there is more to discuss on the table 6 months or 1 year from now, and people stay silent or if they left the mailing list -- which is something noone can evaluate on such a short notice. Easy. judge the worth of support at least in part on previous contributions, and I fervently hope this is what the chairs are doing. If not, I would like the opportunity to rise a hundred opponents to each provide a "-1"... rgds, SL On Wed, 3 Apr 2019, Michele Neylon - Blacknight wrote: All Is someone encouraging astroturfing? The number of either new or inactive members of this list who have posted one line messages in support of the recent policy discussion has reached insane levels Regards Michele??? -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting, Colocation & Domains https://www.blacknight.com/ https://blacknight.blog/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Personal blog: https://michele.blog/ Some thoughts: https://ceo.hosting/ --- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Company No.: 370845
Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Astroturfing?
Hi, On Wed, 3 Apr 2019, Sascha Luck [ml] wrote: Please provide evidence for your insinuation that anyone here discriminates against Portuguese (or any other nationality for that matter.) I can't but regard such an insinuation as a cheap rhetorical trick. Too easy (you might have missed this one...): Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2019 22:00:32 From: Sergey Myasoedov via anti-abuse-wg Reply-To: Sergey Myasoedov To: anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Proposal 2019-03 BGP Hijacking Dear group members from Portugal stated your support for 2019-03, Can you please provide some more arguments than your humble "+1" statement? This is a working group, not a voting. Please. The message was directed to a "group members from Portugal". Members from IE, IL, US, CZ and so on that made brief statements of support were left out of this request. I can't understand why. (...) I've long argued that all policy should only be discussed in ap-wg as I don't think this limited an audience should make policy with far-reaching consequences. Alas, everyone wants to rule in Hell rather than serve in Heaven. What you argue is _not_ "current rules" or the PDP. Anyone who wants to participate in discussing 2019-03 only has to subscribe to this mailing list. If someone has any doubt about if newcomers are real persons, then please Google away. :-) Well, that gives me: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sockpuppet_(Internet)#Meatpuppet So the term "Astroturfing" is technically incorrect as that implies fictitious entities with some commercial interest behind it. So you're now going further than attacking one nationality, aiming at all those who expressed support for 2019-03? (i.e. disagreeing with your view). I'm not going reply with a different Wikipedia URL, but i suspect you know which one i'm thinking about :-)) (Alireza, Brian, Tobias, please feel free to comment on the above URL) Nobody has said that and new participants are always welcome, the more know about this the better. It's not only about "knowing" it's also being able to support or oppose any proposal (present or future). For me the keyword is "participation". However: If someone shows up here only to add a "+1" to a proposal and is then never heard from again, I don't think their support should carry much weight. I trust the chairs to consider this, of course. You might be rushing to judgements. You might draw that conclusion if there is more to discuss on the table 6 months or 1 year from now, and people stay silent or if they left the mailing list -- which is something noone can evaluate on such a short notice. Regards, Carlos rgds, SL On Wed, 3 Apr 2019, Michele Neylon - Blacknight wrote: All Is someone encouraging astroturfing? The number of either new or inactive members of this list who have posted one line messages in support of the recent policy discussion has reached insane levels Regards Michele??? -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting, Colocation & Domains https://www.blacknight.com/ https://blacknight.blog/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Personal blog: https://michele.blog/ Some thoughts: https://ceo.hosting/ --- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Company No.: 370845
Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Astroturfing?
El 3/4/19 15:05, "Sascha Luck [ml]" escribió:
On Wed, Apr 03, 2019 at 01:18:10PM +0200, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via
anti-abuse-wg wrote:
>"Lack of disagreement is more important than agreement" I read that as
those opposing should explain why and provide inputs. Those agreeing can just
say nothing or say "I agree".
I don't actually agree with that premise. ("Lack of disagreement
is more important than agreement") Silence is not consent.
Insofar, the "+1" is useful as an expression of consent.
Of course, that also means that anyone who does not "+1" should
at least be considered as possibly non-consenting.
I don't think so. Silence is to be taken as consent. If you don't care don't
respond. If you care, you express your disagreement.
>That means that "One hundred people for and five people against might not
be rough consensus", but if there is a minor number of insignificant
non-addressed issues, having many "+1", should take preference than having
silence or the opposing ones.
No, and most assuredly not when it is so *obviously* a case of
"I've emailed all my friends and colleagues to support me"
(You're not the only one guilty of this, I regularly receive
requests to "support me in this") But, I think the chairs are
experienced enough to give such contributions the weight they
deserve.
I never done it with my friends, but if I've an event with ISPs about a topic
relevant to them and I can make a short talk to ask them their opinion, it is
perfectly valid even if they NEVER participated before, same with related
mailing list, etc. I never will (and never have done) ask those groups "please
support me". My way is please, read this, I think is good for the community,
and provide your inputs.
The only reason to even *have* a PDP is so issues with proposals
can be addressed. And I take this to mean *all* issues.
Rough consensus is achieved when all issues are addressed, but not necessarily
accommodated.
>I'm tempted to say this is like a negotiation, but not exactly the same. I
think everybody can understand what I mean (in Spanish will be much easier to
explain!), and always trying my best and NEVER did a policy proposal because
I've any special personal or business interest, up to each participant to
believe me or not. I just do it because I think is good for the community, for
Internet, even if it means investing my (small) amount of available time, out
of sleep or leisure time.
Nobody, as far as I can ascertain, has leveled such an
accusation, so why defend against it? Proverbs 28:1?
I didn't mean that was the case, again, English is not my language. What I'm
trying to say is that when you contribute to the community development (at
least in my personal case), you should not take a personal/business position.
However, as you mention it, it actually happened to me and in RIPE. I can find
the emails for you in the addressing policy, if I recall correctly it was
during discussion of 2016-04.
>I *really* prefer to write and defend 100 new policy proposals than being
a co-chair (super-heroes for me!). We don't say it often, and we should repeat
it much more: Thanks for all that work.
Pfft, appeal to flattery. Though it is to be said that sifting
through this list is a task worthy of a Hercules.
rgds,
SL
**
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] Astroturfing?
On Wed, Apr 03, 2019 at 12:52:45PM +0100, Carlos Friaas via anti-abuse-wg wrote: Just like a few days ago i wrote that i hoped there wasn't any kind of discrimination against portuguese participants, i hope there isn't also any kind of discrimination against new participants on this WG. Please provide evidence for your insinuation that anyone here discriminates against Portuguese (or any other nationality for that matter.) I can't but regard such an insinuation as a cheap rhetorical trick. I may understand if some people prefer to have less people in the WG, but i'm not part of that set. While worrying about how we can improve rules/tools against Abuse (that's the point of an Anti-Abuse WG, right?), i would also like to see a much larger number of people involved! I've long argued that all policy should only be discussed in ap-wg as I don't think this limited an audience should make policy with far-reaching consequences. Alas, everyone wants to rule in Hell rather than serve in Heaven. If someone has any doubt about if newcomers are real persons, then please Google away. :-) Well, that gives me: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sockpuppet_(Internet)#Meatpuppet So the term "Astroturfing" is technically incorrect as that implies fictitious entities with some commercial interest behind it. Nobody has said that and new participants are always welcome, the more know about this the better. However: If someone shows up here only to add a "+1" to a proposal and is then never heard from again, I don't think their support should carry much weight. I trust the chairs to consider this, of course. rgds, SL On Wed, 3 Apr 2019, Michele Neylon - Blacknight wrote: All Is someone encouraging astroturfing? The number of either new or inactive members of this list who have posted one line messages in support of the recent policy discussion has reached insane levels Regards Michele??? -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting, Colocation & Domains https://www.blacknight.com/ https://blacknight.blog/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Personal blog: https://michele.blog/ Some thoughts: https://ceo.hosting/ --- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Company No.: 370845
Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Astroturfing?
On Wed, Apr 03, 2019 at 01:18:10PM +0200, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via
anti-abuse-wg wrote:
"Lack of disagreement is more important than agreement" I read that as those opposing
should explain why and provide inputs. Those agreeing can just say nothing or say "I
agree".
I don't actually agree with that premise. ("Lack of disagreement
is more important than agreement") Silence is not consent.
Insofar, the "+1" is useful as an expression of consent.
Of course, that also means that anyone who does not "+1" should
at least be considered as possibly non-consenting.
That means that "One hundred people for and five people against might not be rough
consensus", but if there is a minor number of insignificant non-addressed issues, having many
"+1", should take preference than having silence or the opposing ones.
No, and most assuredly not when it is so *obviously* a case of
"I've emailed all my friends and colleagues to support me"
(You're not the only one guilty of this, I regularly receive
requests to "support me in this") But, I think the chairs are
experienced enough to give such contributions the weight they
deserve.
The only reason to even *have* a PDP is so issues with proposals
can be addressed. And I take this to mean *all* issues.
I'm tempted to say this is like a negotiation, but not exactly the same. I
think everybody can understand what I mean (in Spanish will be much easier to
explain!), and always trying my best and NEVER did a policy proposal because
I've any special personal or business interest, up to each participant to
believe me or not. I just do it because I think is good for the community, for
Internet, even if it means investing my (small) amount of available time, out
of sleep or leisure time.
Nobody, as far as I can ascertain, has leveled such an
accusation, so why defend against it? Proverbs 28:1?
I *really* prefer to write and defend 100 new policy proposals than being a
co-chair (super-heroes for me!). We don't say it often, and we should repeat it
much more: Thanks for all that work.
Pfft, appeal to flattery. Though it is to be said that sifting
through this list is a task worthy of a Hercules.
rgds,
SL
Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Astroturfing?
On Wed, 3 Apr 2019, Richard Clayton wrote: In message <6faf5417-dc6d-4c95-ba14-fcc1b22f6...@blacknight.com>, Michele Neylon - Blacknight writes I've absolutely zero issue with new people engaging, but lots of one line "+1" or almost identical emails isn't meaningful engagement. it's also somewhat of a problem for the proposers of the document since they have said that they intend to revise it in the light of the comments made on the list -- but there's all these people apparently saying that they think it is just fine as is so it seems that quite a lot of people are going to be disappointed -- I hope they chip in after the changes are made and explain in some detail why they preferred the initial version ! Hi, If they don't comment further, imho, it can't also be interpreted that they prefer the initial version... Carlos -- richard Richard Clayton Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. Benjamin Franklin 11 Nov 1755
Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Astroturfing?
On Wed, 3 Apr 2019, Michele Neylon - Blacknight wrote: Carlos I've absolutely zero issue with new people engaging, but lots of one line "+1" or almost identical emails isn't meaningful engagement. Hi, As i understand it, it won't be meaningful only if people unsubscribe from the list after stating support or opposition -- but i have no clue even about the list's current size. If newcomers are aware this list exists, and understand it is the proper place where they can contribute to policy-making (regarding Anti-Abuse), they could be a bit more interactive in further discussions. :-) I think for most newcomers, it won't be very easy to just subscribe and immediately start writing long messages. Regards, Carlos Regards Michele -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting, Colocation & Domains https://www.blacknight.com/ https://blacknight.blog/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Personal blog: https://michele.blog/ Some thoughts: https://ceo.hosting/ --- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Company No.: 370845 On 03/04/2019, 12:53, "Carlos Friaças" wrote: Hi Michele, All, I had to Google for 'astroturfing'. I learned something today. :-) As i see it, the "community" is not a closed group. It was repeateadly stated that "consensus" or "rough consensus" is not a vote. I think that is clear for everyone. Just like a few days ago i wrote that i hoped there wasn't any kind of discrimination against portuguese participants, i hope there isn't also any kind of discrimination against new participants on this WG. I may understand if some people prefer to have less people in the WG, but i'm not part of that set. While worrying about how we can improve rules/tools against Abuse (that's the point of an Anti-Abuse WG, right?), i would also like to see a much larger number of people involved! If someone has any doubt about if newcomers are real persons, then please Google away. :-) I met in person most of people that are supporting 2019-03 and also those that are opposing it (some of which i even co-authored other proposals), since a while back. ps: I think i haven't met Sebastien Lahtinen in person since 10y or so, so if 2019-03 made him show up on the list, that's another plus :-)) Best Regards, Carlos On Wed, 3 Apr 2019, Michele Neylon - Blacknight wrote: > All > > Is someone encouraging astroturfing? > > The number of either new or inactive members of this list who have posted one line messages in support of the recent policy discussion has reached insane levels > > Regards > > Michele > > -- > Mr Michele Neylon > Blacknight Solutions > Hosting, Colocation & Domains > https://www.blacknight.com/ > https://blacknight.blog/ > Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 > Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 > Personal blog: https://michele.blog/ > Some thoughts: https://ceo.hosting/ > --- > Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty > Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Company No.: 370845 > >
Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Astroturfing?
In message <6faf5417-dc6d-4c95-ba14-fcc1b22f6...@blacknight.com>, Michele Neylon - Blacknight writes >I've absolutely zero issue with new people engaging, but lots of one line "+1" >or almost identical emails isn't meaningful engagement. it's also somewhat of a problem for the proposers of the document since they have said that they intend to revise it in the light of the comments made on the list -- but there's all these people apparently saying that they think it is just fine as is so it seems that quite a lot of people are going to be disappointed -- I hope they chip in after the changes are made and explain in some detail why they preferred the initial version ! -- richard Richard Clayton Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. Benjamin Franklin 11 Nov 1755 signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Astroturfing?
As said in my previous email, if we take that strictly, then we will never have any IETF document or RIRs policy proposals reaching consensus. When I agree and will not provide any "extra" for that was has been already said (because the policy text or previous emails), I just do +1. Or do you think people that agree, should then copy the rational for somebody that agrees in the policy proposals, or even the policy text, and say "this is what I agree"? Regards, Jordi El 3/4/19 13:54, "anti-abuse-wg en nombre de Michele Neylon - Blacknight" escribió: Carlos I've absolutely zero issue with new people engaging, but lots of one line "+1" or almost identical emails isn't meaningful engagement. Regards Michele -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting, Colocation & Domains https://www.blacknight.com/ https://blacknight.blog/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Personal blog: https://michele.blog/ Some thoughts: https://ceo.hosting/ --- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Company No.: 370845 On 03/04/2019, 12:53, "Carlos Friaças" wrote: Hi Michele, All, I had to Google for 'astroturfing'. I learned something today. :-) As i see it, the "community" is not a closed group. It was repeateadly stated that "consensus" or "rough consensus" is not a vote. I think that is clear for everyone. Just like a few days ago i wrote that i hoped there wasn't any kind of discrimination against portuguese participants, i hope there isn't also any kind of discrimination against new participants on this WG. I may understand if some people prefer to have less people in the WG, but i'm not part of that set. While worrying about how we can improve rules/tools against Abuse (that's the point of an Anti-Abuse WG, right?), i would also like to see a much larger number of people involved! If someone has any doubt about if newcomers are real persons, then please Google away. :-) I met in person most of people that are supporting 2019-03 and also those that are opposing it (some of which i even co-authored other proposals), since a while back. ps: I think i haven't met Sebastien Lahtinen in person since 10y or so, so if 2019-03 made him show up on the list, that's another plus :-)) Best Regards, Carlos On Wed, 3 Apr 2019, Michele Neylon - Blacknight wrote: > All > > Is someone encouraging astroturfing? > > The number of either new or inactive members of this list who have posted one line messages in support of the recent policy discussion has reached insane levels > > Regards > > Michele > > -- > Mr Michele Neylon > Blacknight Solutions > Hosting, Colocation & Domains > https://www.blacknight.com/ > https://blacknight.blog/ > Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 > Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 > Personal blog: https://michele.blog/ > Some thoughts: https://ceo.hosting/ > --- > Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty > Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Company No.: 370845 > > ** 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] Astroturfing?
Carlos I've absolutely zero issue with new people engaging, but lots of one line "+1" or almost identical emails isn't meaningful engagement. Regards Michele -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting, Colocation & Domains https://www.blacknight.com/ https://blacknight.blog/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Personal blog: https://michele.blog/ Some thoughts: https://ceo.hosting/ --- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Company No.: 370845 On 03/04/2019, 12:53, "Carlos Friaças" wrote: Hi Michele, All, I had to Google for 'astroturfing'. I learned something today. :-) As i see it, the "community" is not a closed group. It was repeateadly stated that "consensus" or "rough consensus" is not a vote. I think that is clear for everyone. Just like a few days ago i wrote that i hoped there wasn't any kind of discrimination against portuguese participants, i hope there isn't also any kind of discrimination against new participants on this WG. I may understand if some people prefer to have less people in the WG, but i'm not part of that set. While worrying about how we can improve rules/tools against Abuse (that's the point of an Anti-Abuse WG, right?), i would also like to see a much larger number of people involved! If someone has any doubt about if newcomers are real persons, then please Google away. :-) I met in person most of people that are supporting 2019-03 and also those that are opposing it (some of which i even co-authored other proposals), since a while back. ps: I think i haven't met Sebastien Lahtinen in person since 10y or so, so if 2019-03 made him show up on the list, that's another plus :-)) Best Regards, Carlos On Wed, 3 Apr 2019, Michele Neylon - Blacknight wrote: > All > > Is someone encouraging astroturfing? > > The number of either new or inactive members of this list who have posted one line messages in support of the recent policy discussion has reached insane levels > > Regards > > Michele > > -- > Mr Michele Neylon > Blacknight Solutions > Hosting, Colocation & Domains > https://www.blacknight.com/ > https://blacknight.blog/ > Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 > Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 > Personal blog: https://michele.blog/ > Some thoughts: https://ceo.hosting/ > --- > Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty > Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Company No.: 370845 > >
Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Astroturfing?
Hi Michele, All, I had to Google for 'astroturfing'. I learned something today. :-) As i see it, the "community" is not a closed group. It was repeateadly stated that "consensus" or "rough consensus" is not a vote. I think that is clear for everyone. Just like a few days ago i wrote that i hoped there wasn't any kind of discrimination against portuguese participants, i hope there isn't also any kind of discrimination against new participants on this WG. I may understand if some people prefer to have less people in the WG, but i'm not part of that set. While worrying about how we can improve rules/tools against Abuse (that's the point of an Anti-Abuse WG, right?), i would also like to see a much larger number of people involved! If someone has any doubt about if newcomers are real persons, then please Google away. :-) I met in person most of people that are supporting 2019-03 and also those that are opposing it (some of which i even co-authored other proposals), since a while back. ps: I think i haven't met Sebastien Lahtinen in person since 10y or so, so if 2019-03 made him show up on the list, that's another plus :-)) Best Regards, Carlos On Wed, 3 Apr 2019, Michele Neylon - Blacknight wrote: All Is someone encouraging astroturfing? The number of either new or inactive members of this list who have posted one line messages in support of the recent policy discussion has reached insane levels Regards Michele -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting, Colocation & Domains https://www.blacknight.com/ https://blacknight.blog/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Personal blog: https://michele.blog/ Some thoughts: https://ceo.hosting/ --- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Company No.: 370845
Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Astroturfing?
My personal view on this (not as a co-author now), and sorry to make it long, but I guess is important and many new people contributing in the list that we never heard about before and I hope this helps many people, as a frequent participant and contributor to discussions. I know very well the consensus process here, in all the RIRs and IETF, which I've been a contributor since about 16-18 years ago, having authored/co-authored probably more than around 75 policy proposals in the 5 RIRs, contributed in many other proposals discussions, and I think at least 3-4 times those numbers of IETF documents. When I know very well a topic, I usually tend to invest more time to write in the relevant list, never mind I'm for or against. Sometimes, I just say +1 or I support the policy (if I know the topic very well), because I just agree with that one, even if I may disagree with some nits on the text, because it doesn't make sense to invest my time or others time to adjust minor issues, which will make the discussion longer and I can just accept as written. However, if I disagree I need to explain why with detail and get engaged in the discussion until we find a middle-term point. I fully agree that is not counting +1s, but those need to be considered as well: "Lack of disagreement is more important than agreement" I read that as those opposing should explain why and provide inputs. Those agreeing can just say nothing or say "I agree". I understand that it is a difficult balance, and how co-chairs have a really difficult task, and that they often ask for "say something if you agree, don't stay silence". However, I don't think we can ask for the people that agree to explain why. Otherwise, we will get tons of messages repeating it, never mind they use the same or different words. This is my reading of consensus, in summary, and I think is the most important aspect: "Rough consensus is achieved when all issues are addressed, but not necessarily accommodated". That means that "One hundred people for and five people against might not be rough consensus", but if there is a minor number of insignificant non-addressed issues, having many "+1", should take preference than having silence or the opposing ones. On the other way around, "+1" to "I oppose", even if there are 1.000 of them, may mean "nothing" against, because the reason for that opposition has been explained/addressed, even if some people "disagree" or don't like it. Now, as a co-author (in general, not for the one being discussed). I try to respond to all the inputs (unless they become repetitive), and try to accommodate my proposal to as many folks as possible. I often change my mind with discussions, and reword text, but sometimes, I can have a strong opinion on a particular part of the proposal, and not concede on that part to others opinions, but even in that case I'm always try to improve. I'm tempted to say this is like a negotiation, but not exactly the same. I think everybody can understand what I mean (in Spanish will be much easier to explain!), and always trying my best and NEVER did a policy proposal because I've any special personal or business interest, up to each participant to believe me or not. I just do it because I think is good for the community, for Internet, even if it means investing my (small) amount of available time, out of sleep or leisure time. May be just passion, as somebody told me a week ago. The demonstration of that: I've authored and defended policy proposals about IPv6 PI and transfers, even if I personally though that it was the wrong thing to do (and often I've said that in my presentation), but it was good for the community, so I took the role to defend the community position, not my own one. Again, this is a very difficult task, and not everyone can be accommodated at 100%. I *really* prefer to write and defend 100 new policy proposals than being a co-chair (super-heroes for me!). We don't say it often, and we should repeat it much more: Thanks for all that work. https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7282 is a good piece of text to read. Regards, Jordi El 3/4/19 12:44, "anti-abuse-wg en nombre de Sebastien Lahtinen" escribió: On Wed, 3 Apr 2019, Michele Neylon - Blacknight wrote: > Is someone encouraging astroturfing? > > The number of either new or inactive members of this list who have > posted one line messages in support of the recent policy discussion has > reached insane levels This specific discussion was highlighted to me and was the reason I joined the list. I've been reading a lot of the comments and haven't responded yet, but this is my first post to this list so I come under the above group. As an outsider, what I would say is that there's a lot of noise here. Was I not from the community in the wider sense and undertand the concept of how technical communities come up with
Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Astroturfing?
On Wed, 3 Apr 2019, Michele Neylon - Blacknight wrote: Is someone encouraging astroturfing? The number of either new or inactive members of this list who have posted one line messages in support of the recent policy discussion has reached insane levels This specific discussion was highlighted to me and was the reason I joined the list. I've been reading a lot of the comments and haven't responded yet, but this is my first post to this list so I come under the above group. As an outsider, what I would say is that there's a lot of noise here. Was I not from the community in the wider sense and undertand the concept of how technical communities come up with policies, I'd be put right off. I think this environment makes it easier for those with more control over their time to contribute. I can see some really valuable and thought out contributions, alongside shorter ones where I can't see the thinking process. It can be quite valid for members of this community to have a legitimate view on the issues raised in the 2019-03 proposal without being willing to commit huge amounts of time in debating in this environment. I'm not that familiar with the RIPE policty process but my understanding is the next phase means we will have a revision. What is unclear to me is whether it would have outstanding questions which could be summarised such that those '+1' responses could indicate more about their views on the specifics around particular aspects of the proposals which are controversial rather than ending up with what is almost-voting kind of support. seb -- NetConnex Broadband Ltd. tel. +44 870 745 4830 fax. +44 870 745 4831 Court Farm Lodge, 1 Eastway, Epsom, Surrey, KT19 8SG. United Kingdom.
Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Astroturfing?
Michele, All, Just to confirm, there is no issue with individuals sending messages of support on a proposal to the mailing list. The Chairs consider them all as part of the process. However, as I also stated, this is not a vote, this is a discussion which may or may not lead to a consensus of the working group and community and anyone who is emailing the list, or encouraging others to do so, should be aware of that. 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 Michele Neylon - Blacknight Sent: Wednesday 3 April 2019 10:58 To: anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net Subject: [anti-abuse-wg] Astroturfing? All Is someone encouraging astroturfing? The number of either new or inactive members of this list who have posted one line messages in support of the recent policy discussion has reached insane levels Regards Michele -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting, Colocation & Domains https://www.blacknight.com/ https://blacknight.blog/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Personal blog: https://michele.blog/ Some thoughts: https://ceo.hosting/ --- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Company No.: 370845
