[anti-abuse-wg] themes on lists and meetings

Frank,

I fear we are rapidly entering into, or have already entered into, 
unproductive territory, but anyway...

"Dipl-Inform. Frank Gadegast" wrote the following on 07/04/2010 19:54:
>
>>> (still waiting on a discussion of the system I discribed arround lunch time)
>>
>> Are you talking about replicating the Tobias' APNIC proposal in the RIPE
>> region and/or publishing lists of non-responders?  I, the list and, I
>
> No, Im talking about an abuse-adress like ip1.ip2.ip3.ip4 at abuse.ripe.net
> wich forward all incoming abuse reports to the responsible member
> I discribed.

Then by all means write a proposal, please.  From a personal point of 
view, I cannot see the usefulness of creating another abuse address, as 
it still has to be pointed at a real address and something still needs 
to be done with it, the latter two are the bigger problem.  And if 
people were mailing an @ripe.net address, it would seem to shift the 
responsibility for enforcement, and the blame for breach, onto the NCC?

>> As the agenda will, in no small part, feature presentations and
>> discussions, it is difficult to proceed as you're suggesting, however
>> consensus is not something that is reached purely at meetings.  The
>> mailing list, where more members can participate is, as I've mentioned,
>> the main location for dicussion.  To take, for instance, the IRT object
>
> But there is no discussion.
> And this might be, becuase most discussion currently happens
> at the meetings.
> Thats why everybody on the list should now, what will be discussed
> on the meetings to give feedback BEFORE the meeting ist happening.
> If people get the feeling, that there ideas and input are welcome,
> they might even appear at the mettings ...

There are certain things that it's possible to give feedback on, other 
things it's more difficult to give feedback on, especially presentations 
which will only be finished shortly before the WG meeting.  I will, as I 
promised, be publishing a draft agenda for the meeting before the end of 
this week and we can see what comes from that.

>> discussion, it was decided in Lisbon to close that item as no discussion
>
> Nobody talked about the IRT object before the meeting took place
> and thats very sad, because I guess a lot of people would
> vote for them.

There was extensive discussion both on the mailing list this group (as 
anti-spam) and DB (as the proposal was formally raised there), so that's 
worth checking out.  However there was no consensus.  And remember, it's 
not a voting situation.

>> No, this is a oft-stated aim of the NCC and a fair chunk of the
>> community.  In addition, our interactions with governments and the LEAs
>> were clearly referenced and minuted at the Lisbon meeting.  There will
>
> Again, doing anythign at meetings cuts out the majority of the members,
> this is like an oligarchy ...

Anything?  By the extension of that logic we'd never have meetings.  The 
reality of human social interaction is that we're still better at doing 
things when we're face to face with each other for short periods of 
time.  There is no intent to cut people out, remote participation is now 
much easier, no hard decisions are made (consensus is not declared 
purely based on a meeting) and minutes are posted.

>>> Well, maybe there will be more ideas coming ...
>>
>> For agenda items?
>
> Sure, did anybody ever asked for them ?
> Im maybe old and forget a lot, but quickly flicked
> through the last mails from the list and did not find anything like
> "call for agenda items".

Really?  I sent two mails, one on the 10th of March, one on the 31st. 
I've received a couple of offers of talks, they will be happening at the 
meeting.  I also received a suggestion of something to look at, so I 
did. :)  Generally a call for items goes out two months before a 
meeting, so yes.  Please note, these two mails were the latest two on 
the list before Claus' mail on the 6th.

> There is a lot to discuss.
> - first I would call for agenda items
> - then I would call for anti-spam-system hosted by RIPE
>
> Then we should talk in details about all this to finally find the best
> ideas and solution and these should be talked about at the meetings.
> I bet that lots of people will attend meetings, when their ideas
> will find there way to meetings ...

Their ideas will find their way to meetings, please stop claiming 
otherwise without any evidence to support that.  Agenda items have 
always been called for.  So far very few concrete ideas have been put 
forth.  The notion you raised of an abuse address requires a lot more 
fleshing out before it could become a proposal and be properly 
discussed.  A variety of questions spring to mind for me, some of which 
I've outlined above.  However without more detail, there will not be 
proper discussion.

Regards,

Brian.