[anti-abuse-wg] Appeal against the Anti-Abuse WG Co-chairs decisions on proposal 2019-04 (Validation of “abuse-mailbox”)

​Good idea! Let's also use a generic name 'Spammer' for contributors to this list.

</sarcasm>​-- 
IDGARA | Alex de Joode | alex at idgara.nl | +31651108221 


On Thu, 12-11-2020 13h 52min, PP <phishphucker at storey.ovh> wrote:
> 
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 
> >> " target="_blank">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, " target="_blank">"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.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> 
> 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/anti-abuse-wg/attachments/20201112/e151d40c/attachment.html>