This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/[email protected]/
[anti-abuse-wg] Appeal against the Anti-Abuse WG Co-chairs decisions on proposal 2019-04 (Validation of “abuse-mailbox”)
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Appeal against the Anti-Abuse WG Co-chairs decisions on proposal 2019-04 (Validation of “abuse-mailbox”)
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Appeal against the Anti-Abuse WG Co-chairs decisions on proposal 2019-04 (Validation of “abuse-mailbox”)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
PP
phishphucker at storey.ovh
Thu Nov 12 13:52:49 CET 2020
Is it possible to move a motion to rename this working group from Anti Abuse WG to "The promotion of abuse working group"? Because this entire working group is a farce. On 12/11/2020 11:31 pm, Angela Dall'Ara wrote: > Dear Jordi, > > > The WGCC task, as defined in Section 4 of the PDP, is it to determine > “whether to uphold or reject appeals”. > In addition to that, in this first occurrence of an appeal being > submitted, they chose to provide an extended explanation to you and > the community, > which is strictly speaking not necessary and is not part of the > appeals process. > > However, I would like to convey here below the answers to your > requests for clarification about the WGCC appeal outcome communication. > > I suggest we close this appeal, unless you decide to escalate to the > RIPE Chair within the next two weeks. > Should you have any more question, please contact me directly and I > will be glad to assist. > > > Kind regards, > > Angela Dall'Ara > RIPE NCC Policy Officer > > > Summary > ======= > > The WGCC does not find sufficient reason to overturn the ruling of > the Anti-Abuse WG chairs on proposal 2019-04 (Validation of > "abuse-mailbox"). > > If Jordi wishes to bring a new proposal that he thinks may achieve > consensus, we note that 2019-04 was being considered during an > unusual > time, when we have not had face-to-face meetings due to the COVID-19 > pandemic. So it faced difficulties not normally facing a policy > proposal. As always, the Anti-Abuse WG chairs may decide not to adopt > any new proposal. > > [Jordi] Could you clarify this paragraph; I can't parse it. > > [Answer]: It basically says that you or anyone else may decide to > submit a > new proposal and that it has been recognised that these are unusual > times due to COVID-19. > > Scope > ===== > > The WGCC considers the appeal process to be solely to determine if > the > working group chairs made a reasonable declaration of consensus or > lack of consensus. > > The appeal process is able review whether the process was > followed, or > whether there was bias shown in the declaration. > > The appeal process will not re-visit any of the points for or against > the proposal. > > [Jordi] Following the PDP, I can't agree with this. Can you clarify? > > [Answer]: During an appeal, the WGCC determine whether the process has > been > followed or not. They do not need to review content of the discussion > related to the proposal. > > > Discussion During the Review Phase > ---------------------------------- > > The need to re-state opinions was explicitly mentioned in the e-mail > moving the policy proposal to the review phase. It is unfortunate > that > the importance of this was not clear to Jordi. Possibly in the future > this can be highlighted in some way. > > [Jordi] This is against the PDP. The chairs can even say I must sing a > song, but the only valid process is the one CLEARLY STATED in the PDP. > Nothing else. Otherwise there is a clear subjectivity in the process > which invalidates it. > > [Answer]: Exactly. And the PDP does not require the WG Chairs to do > anything > during the Review Phase. The explicit invite to re-state opinions > was an extra service. > > > New Policy Proposal > ------------------- > > In principle there is nothing to prevent Jordi or anyone else from > submitting an updated version of 2019-04. However, in the Address > Policy working group having submitted an unsuccessful policy proposal > did prejudice the working group against accepting other submissions. > So there is some possible concern that an updated version would > have a > more difficult time. > > There are many factors to balance when deciding what proposals to > accept, and the work of balancing them is up to the working group > chairs. So we do _not_ explicitly request that the Anti-Abuse working > group chairs adopt any subsequent policy proposals. We _do_ ask that > they give extra consideration to the unusual circumstances that we > are > attempting to make policies in. > > We do not have any recommendation to Jordi whether he or anyone else > should submit an updated version of 2019-04. > > [Jordi] I can't parse this. It looks contradictory. Previous text seems > that is ok to the co-chairs to reject a new version, but here it is > clearly stated that anyone can do it? Are we talking about a new version > of the same proposal or a new proposal? > > [Answer]: It means it is up to you (or anyone else) to consider > submitting a > NEW proposal. And it is up to the WG chairs of the respective WG to > accept such a new proposal or not. > > > > > Appeal discussion > ----------------- > > [Jordi] 3 co-chairs have recused themselves. Is that meaning that all > the discussion has been done in a different mailing list apart from > the WGCC ? > > [Answer]: The discussion has been done on Zoom meetings, not on the > WGCC mailing list. > > > > > On 26/10/2020 09:50, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via anti-abuse-wg wrote: >> There is also another point that I will like to rise and I just >> noticed, and this is very relevant not just because this appeal, but >> because the appeal process itself. >> >> 3 co-chairs have recused themselves. Is that meaning that all the >> discussion has been done in a different mailing list apart from the >> WGCC ? This is an extremely important point for the neutrality of the >> process. >> >> There were other WG co-chairs that, during the proposal discussion, >> expressed their inputs on this proposal (never mind was in favor, >> against or neutral). It should be expected that also those co-chairs >> didn't participate in the appeal. >> >> I also expected that the co-chairs of the anti-abuse WG should have >> taken the same self-recuse position, in order to show a real >> neutrality/impartiality in the process. >> >> All this is clearly showing a lack of impartial appeal process. >> >> Regards, >> Jordi >> @jordipalet >> >> El 26/10/20 9:40, "anti-abuse-wg en nombre de JORDI PALET MARTINEZ >> via anti-abuse-wg" <anti-abuse-wg-bounces at ripe.net en nombre de >> anti-abuse-wg at ripe.net> escribió: >> >> Hi Mirjam, >> >> See my responses below, in-line as many clarifications are >> clearly required, not just because this appeal, but because there is >> a misjudgment of the PDP itself. >> >> Regards, >> Jordi >> @jordipalet >> >> >> >> El 26/10/20 9:07, "Mirjam Kuehne" <mir at zu-hause.nl> escribió: >> >> Dear Jordi, >> >> Regarding the appeal you submitted on 5 October to the RIPE >> Anti-Abuse >> Working Group mailing list, I would like to inform you about >> the >> decision of the RIPE Working Group Chairs Collective >> (according to the >> procedure as defined in ripe-710). >> >> [Jordi] I don't think the PDP has been followed in full for this >> appeal. For example, there was not announcement of the publication of >> the appeal in the web site. >> >> The WG Chairs Collective (WGCC) decided to uphold the >> decision of the >> Co-Chairs of the Anti-Abuse Working Group. Please find below >> their >> detailed response. >> >> Kind regards, >> Mirjam Kühne >> RIPE Chair >> ======== >> >> >> Summary >> ======= >> >> The WGCC does not find sufficient reason to overturn the >> ruling of >> the Anti-Abuse WG chairs on proposal 2019-04 (Validation of >> "abuse-mailbox"). >> >> If Jordi wishes to bring a new proposal that he thinks may >> achieve >> consensus, we note that 2019-04 was being considered during >> an unusual >> time, when we have not had face-to-face meetings due to the >> COVID-19 >> pandemic. So it faced difficulties not normally facing a policy >> proposal. As always, the Anti-Abuse WG chairs may decide not >> to adopt >> any new proposal. >> >> [Jordi] Could you clarify this paragraph; I can't parse it. >> >> Scope >> ===== >> >> The WGCC considers the appeal process to be solely to >> determine if the >> working group chairs made a reasonable declaration of >> consensus or >> lack of consensus. >> >> The appeal process is able review whether the process was >> followed, or >> whether there was bias shown in the declaration. >> >> The appeal process will not re-visit any of the points for >> or against >> the proposal. >> >> [Jordi] Following the PDP, I can't agree with this. Can you >> clarify? >> >> Discussion >> ========== >> >> The appeal submitted includes several points that the WGCC >> found >> important to consider. These are discussed here. Points >> outside of the >> scope of the appeal process are omitted. >> >> >> RIPE NCC Impact Analysis >> ------------------------ >> >> The appeal will not review the accuracy of the RIPE NCC impact >> analysis. The WGCC defers to the expertise of the RIPE NCC >> staff who >> performed the analysis and the members of the Anti-Abuse WG who >> received the analysis. >> >> Further, an impact analysis is information intended to be >> helpful to >> decide whether to adopt a policy. The RIPE community is free >> to assign >> whatever weight it wishes. >> >> [Jordi] However, according to this, the co-chairs should also >> consider that the justification provided by the author against the >> objections is clearly demonstrating that the analysis impact is wrong >> in certain aspects, so those objections can't be accepted as valid. >> >> Discussion During the Review Phase >> ---------------------------------- >> >> The need to re-state opinions was explicitly mentioned in >> the e-mail >> moving the policy proposal to the review phase. It is >> unfortunate that >> the importance of this was not clear to Jordi. Possibly in >> the future >> this can be highlighted in some way. >> >> [Jordi] This is against the PDP. The chairs can even say I must >> sing a song, but the only valid process is the one CLEARLY STATED in >> the PDP. Nothing else. Otherwise there is a clear subjectivity in the >> process which invalidates it. >> >> >> Timing of Consensus Declaration >> ------------------------------- >> >> Jordi mentions several possible changes to the policy >> proposal which >> may have led to consensus. He suggests that the declaration of >> consensus was made too soon. >> >> We recognize that this is a bit of an odd time, due to >> COVID-19. This >> has removed one of our valuable tools, the face-to-face >> meetings. The >> already-tricky job of the working group chairs in the PDP >> has been >> made harder. >> >> We rely on the chairs of the WG involved to decide whether >> or not a >> proposal is likely to ever reach consensus. There are no >> guidelines >> given for this decision. >> >> We find that the Anti-Abuse WG chairs were reasonable in the >> timing of >> declaring that there is no consensus. >> >> >> Specific Points in Conclusion >> ----------------------------- >> >> The conclusion states: >> >> 1. It is not acceptable to declare lack of consensus and at >> the same >> time recognize that there was “some clear support for >> the policy >> during the Discussion Phase”. >> >> This is not true. Having support for a policy does not >> _necessarily_ >> mean there is consensus. >> >> [Jordi] Exactly the same that declaring no-consensus based on >> justifications that have been refuted by the author, is not acceptable. >> >> 2. It is not acceptable to, due to the lack of messages in >> the Review >> Phase, instead of extending it, considering the summer >> vacations >> period, declare lack of consensus. >> >> We find the judgment of the Anti-Abuse WG chairs to be >> reasonable in >> not extending the Review Phase. >> >> [Jordi] Based on what? Because this is even clearly against the >> text of the co-chairs decision. You also are recognizing across the >> text that the circumstances during the Covid are special, so how come >> then it should be acceptable not to extend the review phase >> considering the lack of responses, and the summer period in addition >> to the Covid itself? >> >> 3. It is not acceptable to accept repeated objections as >> valid when >> have been already refuted in a previous phase. >> >> The consensus declaration should defer to the community and >> what they >> consider valid. It appears to have done so in this case. >> >> [Jordi] Once more, lack of consensus can't be determined based >> on objections which are invalid as they have been reasonably refuted >> by the author and even other community members. >> >> 4. It is not acceptable to, considering the PDP (“The PDP is >> designed >> so that compromises can be made and genuine consensus >> achieved”), >> subjectively decide that “regardless of possible edits, >> reaching >> consensus in the short or medium term”, when there are >> possible >> ways to address the objections, which have anyway >> already being >> addressed. >> >> We find the judgment of the Anti-Abuse WG chairs to be >> reasonable in >> declaring a lack of consensus. >> >> >> [Jordi] This is unacceptable. If the discussion shows that >> changes to the proposal can bring a new version which may achieve >> consensus, then it should be allowed. We know that different >> proposals have taken different time and different number of versions >> to achieve consensus, so such decision about if a proposal can reach >> or not consensus, can't be based on a subjective decision. >> >> >> New Policy Proposal >> ------------------- >> >> In principle there is nothing to prevent Jordi or anyone >> else from >> submitting an updated version of 2019-04. However, in the >> Address >> Policy working group having submitted an unsuccessful policy >> proposal >> did prejudice the working group against accepting other >> submissions. >> So there is some possible concern that an updated version >> would have a >> more difficult time. >> >> There are many factors to balance when deciding what >> proposals to >> accept, and the work of balancing them is up to the working >> group >> chairs. So we do _not_ explicitly request that the >> Anti-Abuse working >> group chairs adopt any subsequent policy proposals. We _do_ >> ask that >> they give extra consideration to the unusual circumstances >> that we are >> attempting to make policies in. >> >> We do not have any recommendation to Jordi whether he or >> anyone else >> should submit an updated version of 2019-04. >> >> [Jordi] I can't parse this. It looks contradictory. Previous >> text seems that is ok to the co-chairs to reject a new version, but >> here it is clearly stated that anyone can do it? Are we talking about >> a new version of the same proposal or a new proposal? >> >> Working Group Chairs Excluded >> ============================== >> >> The working group chairs of the Anti-Abuse working group >> were not part >> of the discussions regarding the appeal. >> >> A number of other working group chairs recused themselves >> from the >> appeal. These were: >> >> * Erik Bais >> * Gert Doering >> * Denis Walker >> >> In addition, Mirjam Kühne and Niall O'Reilly recused >> themselves from >> discussion and writing of the appeal. >> >> >> Recommendation to All RIPE WG Chairs >> ==================================== >> >> We recommend that all RIPE WG Chairs provide extra help for >> all policy >> proposals while we are struggling to deal with lack of >> face-to-face >> contact. The form of this help will vary depending on the >> proposal. >> The rest of the WGCC is available to discuss any topics >> related to >> this if any WG chairs want additional feedback or ideas. >> >> This advice does not strictly fall within the scope of the >> appeal, but >> the appeal brought the issue to the attention of the WGCC. >> We consider >> it important to mention here. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ********************************************** >> IPv4 is over >> Are you ready for the new Internet ? >> http://www.theipv6company.com >> The IPv6 Company >> >> This electronic message contains information which may be >> privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the >> exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further >> non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of >> the contents of this information, even if partially, including >> attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a >> criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that >> any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this >> information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly >> prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply >> to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ********************************************** >> IPv4 is over >> Are you ready for the new Internet ? >> http://www.theipv6company.com >> The IPv6 Company >> >> This electronic message contains information which may be privileged >> or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive >> use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty >> authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents >> of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is >> strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you >> are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, >> distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if >> partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be >> considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original >> sender to inform about this communication and delete it. >> >> >> >> >> > >
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Appeal against the Anti-Abuse WG Co-chairs decisions on proposal 2019-04 (Validation of “abuse-mailbox”)
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Appeal against the Anti-Abuse WG Co-chairs decisions on proposal 2019-04 (Validation of “abuse-mailbox”)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]