[anti-abuse-wg] Report & Co-Chair's Decision on Proposal 2019-04

*"Effectively either of these two things would have had the same result for
the decision on consensus."*

Perhaps if someone moves to re-name the group "promotion of abuse working
group"

--



On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 6:31 PM Brian Nisbet <brian.nisbet at heanet.ie> wrote:

> Jordi,
>
> I'm not entirely certain that we would 100% agree here, but this may be
> nuance. We didn't do a direct mapping, but we did make an indicative
> assumption that opinions wouldn't have changed, while also considering what
> would have happened if those same people had said exactly the same thing in
> the Review Phase.
>
> Effectively either of these two things would have had the same result for
> the decision on consensus.
>
> Brian
> Co-Chair, RIPE AA-WG
>
> Brian Nisbet
>
> Service Operations Manager
>
> HEAnet CLG, Ireland's National Education and Research Network
>
> 1st Floor, 5 George's Dock, IFSC, Dublin D01 X8N7, Ireland
>
> +35316609040 brian.nisbet at heanet.ie www.heanet.ie
>
> Registered in Ireland, No. 275301. CRA No. 20036270
> ------------------------------
> *From:* JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet at consulintel.es>
> *Sent:* Tuesday 8 September 2020 09:20
> *To:* Brian Nisbet <brian.nisbet at heanet.ie>; anti-abuse-wg at ripe.net <
> anti-abuse-wg at ripe.net>
> *Subject:* Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Report & Co-Chair's Decision on Proposal
> 2019-04
>
>
> CAUTION[External]: This email originated from outside of the
> organisation. Do not click on links or open the attachments unless you
> recognise the sender and know the content is safe.
>
> Hi Brian,
>
>
>
> I understand that the people can change their mind, for example, after
> other comments or the IA, etc.
>
>
>
> This is the same across different proposal versions, even editorial text
> changes. People can change their mind.
>
>
>
> However not stating a “mind change”, should be taken as having changed
> their position. I understand that you agree on all that and your decision
> is based on that perspective?
>
>
>
> (I want to make sure that language differences between English and Spanish
> are not an interpretation problem here)
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Jordi
>
> @jordipalet
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> El 8/9/20 10:07, "Brian Nisbet" <brian.nisbet at heanet.ie> escribió:
>
>
>
> Jordi,
>
>
>
> Under the PDP, given potential changes to the policy and inputs such as
> the Impact Analysis it is very difficult for the Co-Chairs to make
> assumptions about points of view as we move into the Review Phase, hence
> people will often restate their support or opposition to the policy, and
> indeed will often hark back to comments they have previously made.
>
>
>
> Again, this is why we listed the comments from the Discussion Phase and
> the Co-Chairs feel, even if everyone had made those same comments, the
> Co-Chairs feel there was no clear consensus for change.
>
>
>
> Brian
>
> Co-Chair, RIPE AA-WG
>
>
>
> Brian Nisbet
>
> Service Operations Manager
>
> HEAnet CLG, Ireland's National Education and Research Network
>
> 1st Floor, 5 George's Dock, IFSC, Dublin D01 X8N7, Ireland
>
> +35316609040 brian.nisbet at heanet.ie www.heanet.ie
>
> Registered in Ireland, No. 275301. CRA No. 20036270
> ------------------------------
>
> *From:* JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet at consulintel.es>
> *Sent:* Tuesday 8 September 2020 08:58
> *To:* Brian Nisbet <brian.nisbet at heanet.ie>; anti-abuse-wg at ripe.net <
> anti-abuse-wg at ripe.net>
> *Subject:* Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Report & Co-Chair's Decision on Proposal
> 2019-04
>
>
>
> CAUTION[External]: This email originated from outside of the
> organisation. Do not click on links or open the attachments unless you
> recognise the sender and know the content is safe.
>
>
>
> Hi Brian, all,
>
>
>
> First of all, tks for this detailed report. I’m still processing it.
>
>
>
> However, I’ve a open question for you, which I think it has been also
> clear from other emails, that it is not clear for the community.
>
>
>
> People in favor (or against) the proposal has not (including myself),
> re-stated their position or repeated the same arguments. Is not that an
> indication that they keep their previous position?
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Jordi
>
> @jordipalet
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> El 7/9/20 17:19, "anti-abuse-wg en nombre de Brian Nisbet" <
> anti-abuse-wg-bounces at ripe.net en nombre de brian.nisbet at heanet.ie>
> escribió:
>
>
>
> Colleagues,
>
>
>
> A few weeks ago we reached the end of the latest review phase for 2019-04.
> The Co-Chairs have worked closely with the NCC Policy Development Office
> since then to try to make a decision on this policy. This email contains a
> report on the Discussion Phase and Review Phase and then a final decision
> which, we believe, is supported by the activity during those phases.
>
>
>
> As always, this is underpinned by the RIPE PDP -
> https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-710
> <https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ripe.net%2Fpublications%2Fdocs%2Fripe-710&data=02%7C01%7C%7C77d9871518aa4e5471c308d853d002a0%7Ccd9e8269dfb648e082538b7baf8d3391%7C0%7C0%7C637351500180901252&sdata=OKxXjMF5T8sQ6HRXsqXQ5GsJlRofQZn3X3UP4yTeYWA%3D&reserved=0>
>
>
>
> Discussion Phase:
>
>
>
> There was some clear support for the policy during the Discussion Phase.
> This came from:
>
>
>
> Serge Droz, who felt that it would help in a number of cases and that an
> inability to answer an e-mail every six month probably indicated underlying
> issues. He also felt it would allow the community to understand who was
> doing good work and who wasn't, and it will prevent organisations from
> saying they never received a report. He also pointed out some of the
> difference in reaction between the security and operator communities on
> this policy.
>
>
>
> Carlos Friacas, agreed that it would help, but not solve all problems. He
> also flagged that if "deregistration" was not a possible outcome for a
> continuous failure to validate, then the outcome of transparency would
> still be positive, but did say that must be balanced against the NCC Impact
> Analysis.
>
>
>
> Jordi Palet Martinez, the proposer, was, of course, in favour, but also
> reacted to a number of voices against the proposal:
>
> - The job of the RIPE NCC is to implement the policies agreed by the
> community.  I believe is perfectly understandable the need to avoid using
> manual forms which don't follow a single standard, which means extra work
> for *everyone*. (Responding to Nick Hilliard)
>
> -  The actual policy has a bigger level of micro-management, by setting
> one year and not allowing the NCC to change that. (Responding to Nick
> Hilliard)
>
> - The problem of a form is that is not standard. This is economically
> non-sustainable and means that the cost of the abuse cases is on the back
> of the one actually reporting. (Responding to No No)
>
> - The actual validation is not working, it is just a technical validation
> (responding to Gert Doering)
>
> - The community prefers to do things in steps, we initially asked for an
> abuse mailbox, we then added a technical validation, now we are asking for
> a better validation. I am not asking to verify if you handle abuse case or
> not and I am not asking to take any new actions.
>
>
>
> Angel Gonzalez Berdasco suuported the proposal, but also made multiple
> comments on a different approach, including an abuse-uri and highlighted
> that standarising the communications was important.
>
>
>
> A number of people spoke in clear opposition.
>
>
>
> Nick Hilliard stated that it is not the job of the RIPE NCC to tell its
> members how to handle abuse reports. He further said that the is
> self-contradictory, intrusive into NCC membership business processes and
> there is no compelling reason to believe that the proposal will end up
> reducing the amount of abuse on the internet.
>
>
>
> Gert Doering said that if people *do not want* to handle abuse reports,
> this proposal will not make them and that cases of misconfiguration are
> already caught today.
>
>
>
> No No did not want anyone to be restricted in how they received abuse
> reports.
>
>
>
> Michele Neylon opposed the proposal and agreed with the points made by
> Nick.
>
>
>
> A number of other people posted either with mixed comments, or in a way
> that did not make it clear where they stood on the proposal:
>
>
>
> Job Snijders, Elad Cohen, Alistair Mackenzie, Suresh Ramasubramanian,
> Hans-Martin Mosner, Shane Kerr, Sascha Luck, Arash Naderpur, Richard
> Clayton, Alessandro Vesely, Randy Bush
>
>
>
> The Review Phase of the proposal lasted from 20 July 2020 to 18 August
> 2020.
>
>
>
> There were 14 messages received during the review phase. Out of which, 3
> were from the PDO, 1 was myself's and 2 were Jordi’s requesting
> clarification on the Impact Analysis.
>
>
>
>  - There was no messages of support to the proposal.
>
>
>
> There was one message stating that the form is more beneficial than email
> to report abuse because it always reaches the host to which Jordi tried to
> address stating that email can be automated whilst forms can not.
>
>
>
>  - There were opposing arguments based on two fronts:
>
>
>
> 1) Nick Hilliard and Erik Bais commented that the effort and cost to
> implement this proposal are too great in relations to the benefits that are
> alleged.
>
>
>
> 2) Michele Neylon and Arash Naderpour commented that they oppose forcing
> operators to use only email for handling abuse reports and internal
> handling procedures should be solely defined by the operator.
>
>
>
> Nick Hilliard and Michele Neylon also requested the proposal to be dropped
> as concerns raised over the last 18 months have not been addressed and
> tweaking this proposal would not add any value.
>
>
>
> There was no attempt to address the opposing arguments above during the
> review phase.
>
>
>
> With all of this in mind, and with the continued failure of any kind of
> consensus from the working group, the Co-Chairs have decided to withdraw
> this proposal. As always we would welcome proposals on this and other
> matters, however we do not feel that there is any likelihood of 2019-04,
> regardless of possible edits, reaching consensus in the short or medium
> term.
>
>
>
> Alireza, Brian, Tobias
>
> Co-Chairs, RIPE AA-WG
>
>
>
> Brian Nisbet
>
> Service Operations Manager
>
> HEAnet CLG, Ireland's National Education and Research Network
>
> 1st Floor, 5 George's Dock, IFSC, Dublin D01 X8N7, Ireland
>
> +35316609040 brian.nisbet at heanet.ie www.heanet.ie
>
> Registered in Ireland, No. 275301. CRA No. 20036270
>
>
> **********************************************
> 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/20200908/908c5111/attachment.html>