[address-policy-wg] {Disarmed} Complaint and future of the APWG.

Hi,

As a casual reader of this list, I would say that

a) there is nothing to be gained from mudslinging about past behaviours wrt IPv4 address acquisition/trading (if illegal things have happened, that’s for the authorities to investigate, and not for this list...)

b) as a community we should ensure we have policies that allow the remaining scarce RIR IPv4 resource to be allocated fairly and equitably within our community for genuine use (which at this point ought to be with a view to supporting IPv6 transition - we were of course supposed to all be on IPv6 before IPv4 ran out, but hey….)

c) as a community we should also be taking all reasonable steps to progress the transition to IPv6 (for which, for example, Apple’s announcement this week that its App Store would in future only add IPv6-capable apps was excellent news...)

The tone of many posts here, of late, has been very disappointing. Let’s please try to be constructive.

Tim

> On 11 Jun 2015, at 10:47, Lu Heng <h.lu at anytimechinese.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi Gert, and Chair, everyone here:
> 
> This Email is my thought on what happened in past years in the APWG.
> 
> First of all, I support turn on moderation on this list.
> 
> secondly, I do feel there are two different kind of treatment here from one of the Chair.
> 
> While my company information and false accusation getting posted in the list, all I heard from that Chair was:
> 
> "One is "people managed to get large chunks of address space before the
> last-/8 policy kicked in, and got rich selling them" (Jump SRL is another
> example of this).  There is not really anything we in address policy
> can do about this retroactively - and in any case, this is something
> that will certainly not happen again, as there are no big chunks to be
> received anymore (but of course the NCC will look into it if fraud
> happened, and the tax authorities might also be interested...)"
> 
> He does not stop the action and even named another company in the community in his reply.
> 
> While yesterday someone making false accusation about me and my company yesterday, he even replied:
> 
> "Actually I can't see a personal attack here.  I do see provable facts put
> on the table, which might reflect in a way that you might not like, but that
> is the usual problem with transparency.  All the data about, for example,
> MailScanner has detected a possible fraud attempt from "37.222.0.0" claiming to be 37.222.0.0/15 <http://37.222.0.0/15> is available in the RIPE DB "--show-version <x>" output.
> 
> While I do consider this only partially relevant to the policy proposal
> under discussion, it *is* giving a background on what is happening or
> has happened outside the last /8 range, and some of these transfers indeed
> make the "30x /22 fast-transferred" issue look fairly marginal."
> 
> While I fail to understand what my company and my business has to do with RIPE policy discussion, and why my company has even related to this policy proposal under discussion(close loop for last /8), I was tried to explain to him:
> 
> "Put up a fact without statement is fine with me, putting up our IP range from the past is some how personal in my opinion, accusing me and my company "Abuser" is a statement in the public space without solicit evidence in which I first did not see the relevance to policy discussion, secondly it is unlawful as well.
> 
> Here are two fundamental problem to your wording:
> 
> 1. The policy proposal under discussion is about protect the original intent of the last /8, in which the IP mentioned before has nothing to do with.
> 
> 2. Because it was legal to kill anyone on the street 1000 years ago does not justify for preventing pass a law today to prevent future killing,  in another words, whatever happened in the past should has no relevance to this policy.
> 
> Sure, any one can doubt my business and my motive as well, but both my business and my motive has nothing to do with 2015-1"to close loop of the /8". And such doubt is not for PWAG to discuss anyway. It is policy discussion list, even in the worst case, you think I do not follow the policy, you should report to RIPE NCC but not putting unverified accusation in the policy mailing list.
> 
> Making me a bad guy does not justify the current bad behaviour.
> 
> And I am not making worse for myself, I stay silence for the past years does not mean I did not see the list, I just followed advice by community member like Rob and everybody i talked in the Ripe meeting, I have been told let it go and not flight for it, and It also does not mean I will take on any accusation on me on a public space that I do care with. And I do believe you totally understand, what I do in my business is a personal issue, and I am very open to discuss with you in a private space, but not in the policy mailing list. To best of my knowledge, you have never approached me to talk with me or even ask me anything, without doing that and making statement in the public list is not very ethnic I believe."
> 
> From my best impression of his personal opinion(feel free to correct me if I am wrong),he does not like anyone sell their IPs, in which is perfectly fine with me, everyone can have things they like or dislike, however, acting as chair of APWG, I believe integrity should be keep at highest level therefore personal emotion should not get involved.
> 
> I was 19 when I had my first RIPE meeting, I did not miss a single meeting since then, Gert and Sander and many other community members helped me a lot in the process to understand the fundamental part of the internet, I do appreciate for that, and my business has grow over years, and I always try to be a good community member and contributing to the community as much as I can, to be clear, everything I have ever posted in the APWG was for the general good of the community and not for my personal gain. 
> 
> "I don't like this guy so I am not going to protect his personal information and people can feel free to make false accusation on him as much as they want", this is the impression I had for past few month from this chair, while I called him politely ask him give me 2 mins to  explain my business to him since he give me impression that he might believe I am an "absuer" (apologise if he does not think that way) and only request him to remain confidential, he refused to talk to me, and i hand up the call and here only way to left to protect future of my company and my name in attached, I have to do this call, I am making an complaint about this chair on his integrity of moderate this list.
> 
> Because this is the complaint about the APWG chair, RIPE chair is CCed in the list.
> 
> I do not expect anything from this complaint other than good discussion about policy in the future in this list, no more personal attach, no more personal information leaked, no more false accusation on things not related to the policy.
> 
> End of the day, it is policy will affect millions of internet users in Europe, middle East, Russian, we really should stop childish acting like who did what so why cannot I do.
> 
> Be professional.
> 
> With regards.
> 
> Lu
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 10:33 AM, Gert Doering <gert at space.net <mailto:gert at space.net>> wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 11:24:27AM +0300, Elvis Daniel Velea wrote:
> > PS: Gert, I know I promised yesterday I will no longer reply back to
> > attacks, but I had to reply to this one and ask Ciprian (one more time)
> > to stop. Can you also do something about it?
> 
> As a matter of last resort, we might turn on moderation for the APWG list.
> 
> I'm not really happy to even consider that, as it would hurt transparency
> and the flow of discussion ("if neither chair is around, things come to a
> stop", and "what are the criteria to block or pass a mail?  will the chairs
> use this to influence the outcome of a discussion?") - but if this is not
> stopping RIGHT NOW, we'll have to.
> 
> Gert Doering
>         -- APWG chair
> --
> have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?
> 
> SpaceNet AG                        Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard
> Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14          Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
> D-80807 Muenchen                   HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
> Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 <tel:%2B49%20%280%2989%2F32356-444>           USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> --
> Kind regards.
> Lu
> 
> This transmission is intended solely for the addressee(s) shown above.
> It may contain information that is privileged, confidential or
> otherwise protected from disclosure. Any review, dissemination or use
> of this transmission or its contents by persons other than the
> intended addressee(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received
> this transmission in error, please notify this office immediately and
> e-mail the original at the sender's address above by replying to this
> message and including the text of the transmission received.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20150611/55742d38/attachment.html>