[anti-abuse-wg] Draft Anti-Abuse WG Minutes - RIPE 61

I am rather late to this thread as it was just drawn to my attention elsewhere.

1. Richard Cox's concerns were entirely valid, and the abuse issues
documented at http://www.spamhaus.org/sbl/listings.lasso?isp=RIPE -
mostly PI / PA blocks, several as large as /15, can't be wished away
by removing critics of this WG from a co-chair post.

2. I would echo Peter's concerns about this being brought up as AOB,
discussed (or rather, not discussed) in overtime with very few people
in the room, leading to the removal of a co-chair.  A much wider
consensus should have been obtained - at least by discussion on this
list if not at the plenary.

This was not consensus. WG participants (and I count several who are
in the anti abuse community, engage regularly with RIRs at other fora,
but don't typically have the budget to travel to RIPE) should have
been consulted before this.

Yes, nobody else had much to say about this removal, so I'll take this
opportunity to comment.

About Richard Cox's removal and about two other meta issues.

First - the prevailing attitude I have seen from at least some
participants (this is not "us vs them" in terms of routing / dns
people vs abuse people .. you have colleagues in your own
organizations who will disagree with your views - especially Shane, I
won't speak for Paul Vixie but I am not at all sure he'd agree with
you about your comment, even after its rephrase).

Second - the mantra, meme, fallacy etc of the "we are not the XYZ
police" that I keep hearing cited.  It would be fun indeed if a bank
manager sanctioned a loan for say a quarter of a million dollars (lets
say comparable to an allocation for a /15) and then baldly state that
he's not the document police .. That presentation about LIR
deregistration is what I'd call partially shutting the barn door long
after the horses, plural, have bolted.

That damage's been done, a lot of IP space has been poisoned.  It is
high time to realize that shooting the messenger is not the best way
to deal with such a situation.

	srs


Peter Koch wrote:

>
>     On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 03:47:42PM +0000, Brian Nisbet wrote:
>
>
>         Peter Koch said the session was already overrun by 15 minutes and this
>         delicate issue should be resolved at another time.
>
>     I'd like to clarify that my point was that this topic was placed under AOB
>     _and_ mostly dealt with during overtime, which, absence of written process
>     and procedures nonwithstanding, did not meet my expectations and experiences
>     of appropriateness given delicacy.  That said, I consider the issue closed.


JD Falk wrote:
> On Dec 15, 2010, at 3:15 PM, Shane Kerr wrote:
>
>> I think that my point was that there is a disconnect between people
>> working on anti-abuse and the ISPs, not about the Anti-Abuse Working
>> Group or its participants. I might not have said that of course...
>
> Many people who work for ISPs would agree.  It's often simply a matter of scale
> and imagination....
>