[anti-abuse-wg] 2013-01 New Policy Proposal (Openness about Policy Violations)

Sander, all,

On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 07:55:22AM +0100, Sander Steffann wrote:

> Thanks. Let's start focussing on the proposal again :-)

for the record, so that there's not only one voice against, I share Sascha's
concerns.  The proposal fails to assess the risk of 'sticking rumor'
and also fails to explain what the exact goal is (actually, there might be
two radically orthogonal ones) and why the proposed measures would support
that goal.

> Your comment is still focused on one aspect of the draft text, but you haven't responded yet to any alternatives I proposed. The last one was the one I sent on Saturday:
> 
> I want to suggest the following direction for this proposal:
> Change section 1 (1. Transparency on reported policy violations) to:
> - RIPE NCC publishes statistics on complaints/reports (number of complaints in each state: new, under investigation, etc)
> - RIPE NCC provides a way for the complainer and resource holder to see the progress, keeping the currently existing privacy options
> 
> And leave section 2 (2. Transparency on reclaimed resources) as it currently is. I haven't seen any objections to that part yet.
> 
> Please focus on this suggestion now. It is obvious that we are never getting consensus on the 'old' text :-)

I see two motivations in the PP:

1) alleged or perceived intransparency on 'complaint' handling at the NCC
   As curious as I might be myself, I fail to see why a complainant would deserve
   deeper insight into the state of investigation than anybody else or why this
   should happen in public.  As an NCC oversight issue, a summary that will not
   identify any particular case, should be sufficient if it included start, end and
   duration.

2) "stopping abuse of these shared public resources"
   This really concerns me, but maybe by even only doubting I have already
   committed the abuse?  We can surely discuss violations of allocation/assignment
   policies, especially the obtainment of resources by wilful submisison of wrong,
   forged or falsified information, but this is much different from any judgement
   about the use of tehse resources once they have been compliantly acquired.
   The NCC is not in the business of the latter.

-Peter