[anti-abuse-wg] Authorities, or lack thereof

Ronald F. Guilmette wrote, On 20/06/2013 21:11:
> In message <51C2EEAF.9010907 at heanet.ie>,
> Brian Nisbet <brian.nisbet at heanet.ie> wrote:
>
>> This WG has no greater authority to direct or request anything from the
>> NCC than any other member of the community. The WG is not, explicitly, a
>> group within the community that directly deals with abuse. It is a group
>> of people who are interested in the subject, who may well work together
>> to create policies or documents or form a better understanding of the
>> issue, but it is not a created group to deal with abuse.
>>
>> Now, to go a bit further here. The members of the WG can ask the NCC to
>> do a particular thing. Depending on the thing that might be an action
>> item that arises out of the mailing list or a meeting (eg Could the NCC
>> please clarify under exactly what circumstances an LIR could be closed
>> or deregistered).
>
> So, the WG may, explicitly, send requests to the NCC, yes?

For certain things, yes.

>> The WG cannot say "we do not like this operator,
>> please shut them down"...
>
> Cannot or will not?

Ah, yes, ok...

> I am not just playing with words here.  I ernestly would like to know if
> there is anything... anything at all... codified into any of the written
> rules or bylaws of either RIPE or this WG, in particular, that explicitly
> prohibits this or any other WG, as a whole, and as a WG, from _saying_
> any bloody thing it likes.  I could well and truly understand if you
> were to tell me that if the WG said `X' or the WG said `Y' then it would
> only garner a laugh all around and/or general condemnation from a solid
> majority of the remainder of the RIPE membership.  But that would be
> quite different from the statement that you just made, which, the way
> I read it, sounds like this WG is _obligated_ to utterly refrain from
> making certain kinds of public comments and/or certain kinds of requests
> to NCC.

You are right, there is nothing prohibiting anyone saying it, but saying 
it would have no effect as there is no policy or document there to 
enforce it or for the NCC to react. I think the interpretations here are 
in use of language. There is no such obligation.

> I probably should not try to anticipate your response to the above, but
> I will anyway...

Well, it saves me having to type so much. :)

> I suspect that you will say that I am corerct that there is nothing
> _explicit_ that prohibits the WG from saying any bloody thing it likes,
> but that it would simply be extraordinarily impolitic for this WG to
> go about making such requests or comments on specific operators or
> allocations, and that doing so might only be likely to result in the
> WG meeting its own untimely demise, at the request of the general RIPE
> membership.  Assuming so, I for one might be willing to run that risk,
> even if others... perhaps many others... might not be so inclined.

I'm not sure about an untimely demise, per se. The NCC, nor the members 
of the NCC, have no power over the WGs, but it would certainly change 
the nature of the relationship between the WG and the NCC. It is 
conceivable that the community might think we've gone off the rails, 
certainly, so yeah, there would be a danger.

But if those who are involved in the WG mandated the WG to actually take 
this action, even knowing the above, well I suppose the WG would have to 
do it.

>> in the same way the Routing WG cannot say "we
>> require all members of the NCC to abandon BGP". That is not what WGs in
>> the RIPE community are for.
>
> See above.  Even I can well and truly see that it would be extraordinarily
> impolitic if the Routing WG were to make that specific declaration.  They
> would be laughed and ignored into oblivion.  But my question remains...
> Other than the fact that those consequences would predictably ensue for
> that WG, I mean if it were to make such a (clearly unworable) declaration,
> is there anything specific that prohibits that WG from speaking its co-
> llective mind in any way it chooses?

Again, not of which I am aware.

>> The WG can of course make the NCC aware of a bad operator
>
> With what effect, exactly?  To what end?  Do you see what I mean?  If such
> information transmission (to NCC) occurs, and if no allocations ever change
> as a result, then what was the point?

I do see what you mean, but I was answering the questions you asked. 
Without a policy change, likely agreed to by the NCC membership (which 
opens up a whole different can of stakeholder interaction worms) there 
would be no automatic action. However such a notification may trigger an 
audit and the NCC's only processes, which may in turn lead to action 
under the procedures as currently documented.

> Also, when you say that 'the Anti-Abuse WG" may do so, do you mean only
> the individual members thereof, acting only as individual members?  That
> seems to me to be what you were implying or intending to say, i.e. that
> any individual WG member can send over a note to NCC telling then about
> a "bad operator".
>
> Obviously, any individual member may elect to do that, however _individuals_
> obviously carry a lot less weight than an entire WG.  Has there ever been
> any instance in the history of the Anti-Abuse WG in which the WG _as a
> whole_ provided a package of information to NCC regarding, as you put it,
> a "bad operator"?

An individual could always do this. The WG could, but the members would 
have to direct it to do so. This can be done on the mailing list or in a 
meeting. Whether that would carry more weight is honestly debatable, if 
they came with evidence, but no, I mean that the WG could, if so 
directed by its members. The specific action here would likely be Tobias 
and I speaking to the NCC about it, but I wouldn't like to speculate on 
what would happen or if that would be actually any more effective than 
you or any other member of this WG doing it.

>> First off, no offence is taken. :)
>
> OK, good.  Thank you.  You are a gentleman.

And you are too kind. Debate on these topics can often descend very 
quickly into badness (and has on this list in the past), I'm very glad 
this isn't. Indeed, it is proving very useful, to me at least.

>> However, I think your comments here stem from a fundamental
>> misunderstanding of how the community (of which you are a part,
>> regardless of your earlier comments on the list) works. The WG was not
>> set up to up to do those things.
>
> I was arguably not born to do software, but I do anyway.  People and
> organizations and institutions do change and evolve, including even in
> their goals and missions.

Absolutely and the WG may well (and indeed did very obviously but a few 
years ago), but I can only answer on the current circumstances.

>> It has been a handy by-product of
>> sharing information and expertise that reports have been passed on to
>> the NCC, but it's not why we're here. There are 9000+ members of the
>> RIPE NCC and countless others in the community. All of those operators
>> will tell you "my network, my rules" albeit they are forced by law or
>> contract to take other views into consideration. They are not beholden
>> to this or any other WG unless a policy is made or a motion passed by
>> the membership.
>
> Right.  And that is all as it should be.  I am not asking about any
> hypothetical new policies that might be enacted.  What about policies
> that exist that are simply not being enforced?  And what about open
> questions like the one that I think Furio put, i.e. if a new or existing
> RIPE member came to RIPE NCC with a request for, say, a /19 with their
> explicitly stated intended use being "snowshoe spamming", then what
> would happen?

This is something that I will specifically bring to the attention of the 
NCC (although I know a number of the staff read this list) and ask for 
someone to address these points.

>> At no point in the Charter for the AA-WG does it suggest we're here to
>> take back resources, so I'm genuinely very interested to know where this
>> all came from?
>
> It came from the fact that there _do_ exist problems, and with respect to
> the specific problems that exist (both within the RIPE region and most
> certainly elsewhere as well) _everyone_ seems to constantly be running as
> far and as fast away from actually dealing with those problems as it is
> humanly possible to do.  In short, to paraphrase an old saying that we
> have here on this side of the pond, "It's a tough job, but _somebody_
> ought to be doing it."

Arguably yes, it's easier to do nothing, but I don't think people are 
doing nothing, at all. I'm still worried you are asking the wrong people 
to do this job.

> So, um, let me see...  we have instances of network abuse... instances
> that arguably go against policies that already exist and that have
> already been ratified by the RIPE membership as a whole.  But there
> is little or no enforcement of said rules on the part of RIPE NCC,
> which, quite naturally, finds it politically safest not to rock the
> boat in any way, ever.  But then we have this thing called the "Anti-
> Abuse Working Group" which, as you have been kind enough to clarify
> for me, has no authority to do anything in particular about any actual
> instances of acutal abuse, and which rather must content itself with
> occasionally making recommendations for specific _new_ policies to the
> RIPE membership as a whole, an activity which, I gather it does with
> a relatively high degree of infrequency.  Meanwhile the problems continue,
> even as everyone and his brother seems to be out buying ten foot poles
> with which they may avoid touching any of the real, current, and press-
> ing problems.

It has no authority, nor was there ever any notion that it would, as an 
entity, have authority. It really is that straight forward. Also, the WG 
has been increasingly active in recent years. The situation is far from 
perfect, in regards to abuse in general, again, it's about the right 
people/groups for the right jobs.

> So anyway, yes, if you wish to assert that I might in some ways be en-
> couraging a more expansive view of the charter, mission, and goals of this
> WG, then I plead guilty as charged, however I throw myself upon the mercy
> of the court and ask for clemency on the basis of that fact that it is
> perhaps a natual mistake for an outsider to make to assume... apparently
> improperly... that a working group going by the name "Anti-Abuse" might
> actually wish to get its hands dirty from time to time, you know, by
> actually taking actual actions with respect to actual and ongoing instances
> of abuse, including instances which are already well and truly defined as
> such.

I think we might get quite circular at some point, but I do now 
certainly have a greater understanding of what you're talking about, 
which is most useful. I also don't think I'm going to have any answer in 
the short term that's going to please you. Tobias and I will be working 
to produce an updated Charter for the WG's consideration soon, although 
I honestly doubt it will include the kind of activity you are 
specifically looking for.

Brian
Co-Chair, AA-WG