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

Suresh,

Thanks for your comments, I've responded below. If you would like to 
discuss this further, either on list or in private email, we can, of 
course, do so.

"Suresh Ramasubramanian" wrote the following on 01/02/2011 02:38:
> 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.

The actions taken in Rome were in no way an attempt to wish away 
problems by removing Richard from a co-chair post. Richard is still more 
than welcome to participate in the RIPE community, just as he did before 
he was a co-chair. I do not intend to re-paste sections of the minutes 
here where the reasons are detailed, but this action was not brought 
about by one blog post, or simply criticism of the RIPE NCC.

> 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.

The timing was less than ideal, but again, I stand by what I said at the 
meeting. In addition, the room has far more than 'very few people' in it 
during these proceedings. Please note that nobody actually objected to 
the proposal, only the timing.

> 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.

Remote participation was possible, with a live video feed. This comment, 
some two months after RIPE 61, is the first comment that has been made 
about this. And while I am not in any way ignoring it I don't think it's 
unfair to say that it suggests the WG were either in support or 
ambivalent towards what happened?

> 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).

The AA-WG, like every WG, can only really work if participation comes 
from as many interested areas of the community as possible. Everyone has 
disagreements, as you say, but I never wish the impression to be given 
that people do not have a voice or are not wanted. As I said in Rome, 
I'm aware of the possible perception around what happened and I'm hoping 
the WG and I will be able to act to dispel them.

> 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 I saw discussed is
> what I'd call partially shutting the barn door long after the horses,
> plural, have bolted.

Things are, truly, never as simple as they seem. There are many aspects 
to that particular line, and hoping that the community, along with the 
NCC, can and are working to improve the situation.

> 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.

I will finish by restating that my reasons for this, and the reasons of 
those who discussed it with me, were not based on shooting the 
messenger, however it may look. I cannot, of course, empirically prove 
that, but I'm hoping that you may accept my word and that the actions of 
the WG both now and in the future will back that up.

Brian.