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

Hi Brian

Glad to continue this, and I respect your reasons that you state.

But to be brief, Richard Cox has been a valued contributor at more
than one anti abuse forum - and his comments were perhaps a sign of
his frustration.

As for his hiatus from the abuse WG - I do know he has had some health
issues in the recent past, and so may not have been able to
participate in the WG regularly.

All the same, I would strongly repeat my request that the RIPE NCC as
well as this WG work closely with anti abuse organizations including
spamhaus (and of course MAAWG) to mitigate these problems.  There's a
maawg later this year (october 24-27) in Paris where I am sure a
discussion of how to work together with the abuse teams at SPs to help
mitigate the problem of scarce v4 resources being allocated to
malicious actors (and perhaps a focus on what V6 netblocks are being
acquired by them, and what to do about those).

As for the internet police comment, it has a long and storied history
- and the context in which it was made might not possibly be the same
context in which we find ourselves.  There is of course a balance to
be struck between security and privacy, however we do have to
consider, and guard against, the fact that the same measures that
extend privacy to legitimate organizations will be abused by malicious
actors.  The problem is that all too often, I find it being treated as
an article of faith.

thanks [and sorry for the double post earlier]

--srs

On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 5:15 PM, Brian Nisbet <brian.nisbet at heanet.ie> wrote:
> 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.
>
>



-- 
Suresh Ramasubramanian (ops.lists at gmail.com)