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

Suresh,

I might be a little less brief than you, apologies.

Again, I don't wish to rehash the discussion in the minutes (along with 
video and stenography if anyone would like to watch the full 30 
minutes), but it was my impression, and the impression of the other WG 
chairs, the Chair of RIPE and the Chair of the NCC Executive Board that 
we had made multiple attempts to engage with Richard about these issues. 
The standard response to someone in the RIPE community saying "This 
thing should be changed," is to ask how they would like it to be 
changed. This is the start of the policy development process. Each time 
Richard said something should be changed he was asked that question and 
the process was explained, at no point was a policy presented.

So, over time, Richard appeared to be getting more frustrated, while 
many people felt they were offering him at least a path to resolve those 
frustrations, but nothing ever happened. I'm not saying a policy 
proposal would have been a silver bullet, but it is, at least, a start, 
and something to hang a conversation off. And while this was going on 
comments from himself and others inside the CyberCrime Working Party, 
along with internal RIPE NCC discussions and other catalysts were having 
a direct effect, leading to the RIPE NCC closure and deregistration 
procedure as presented at RIPE 61 in Rome (see 
http://www.ripe.net/legal/Closure-of-LIR-and-deregistration-of-INRs_final-draft.pdf). 


I should also say that Richard's occasional absenses from RIPE meetings 
due to his health was not a factor in the decision, despite being raised 
from the floor.

The RIPE NCC, along with the RIPE community, has been taking steps to 
work more closely with the organisations like MAAWG and the NCC 
presented at the Barcelona meeting. That cooperation will continue. The 
Paris meeting is directly before the RIPE 63 meeting in Vienna, so I'm 
not sure who will be able to attend, but such events are more clearly on 
the radar at this point.

As a final note on the notion of Internet Police and other such terms, 
it is a cloudy and much bandied phrase, but there is an important point 
to make. The RIPE NCC service region, and the region from which most of 
the community originates, comprises of some 78 countries with widely 
varying laws and cultures.  It is an extremely interesting region in 
which to work and while I would not for one moment suggest that we can 
do nothing, not even close, it is a very important point to remember in 
any anti-abuse conversation.

Brian.

"Suresh Ramasubramanian" wrote the following on 01/02/2011 13:50:
> 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.
>>
>>
>
>
>