<html><head><style id="axi-htmleditor-style" type="text/css">p { margin: 0px; }</style></head><body dir="" style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: "Source Sans Pro", sans-serif; background-image: none; background-repeat: repeat; background-attachment: fixed;">Good idea! Let's also use a generic name 'Spammer' for contributors to this list.<br><div class="x-axi-signature"><br></div><div class="x-axi-signature"></sarcasm><br><div class="x-axi-signature" style="; font-size: 10pt; font-family: " source="" sans="" pro",="" sans-serif;"="">-- <div>IDGARA | Alex de Joode | alex@idgara.nl | +31651108221 <br></div></div></div><br>On Thu, 12-11-2020 13h 52min, PP <phishphucker@storey.ovh> wrote:<br><blockquote style="margin-left: 10px; padding-left: 10px; border-left: 1px solid #ccc;"><div style="font-family: " source="" sans="" pro",="" sans-serif;="" font-size:="" 10pt;"="">Is it possible to move a motion to rename this working group from Anti <br>Abuse WG to "The promotion of abuse working group"?<br><br>Because this entire working group is a farce.<br><br><br>On 12/11/2020 11:31 pm, Angela Dall'Ara wrote:<br>> Dear Jordi,<br>><br>><br>> The WGCC task, as defined in Section 4 of the PDP, is it to determine <br>> “whether to uphold or reject appeals”.<br>> In addition to that, in this first occurrence of an appeal being <br>> submitted, they chose to provide an extended explanation to you and <br>> the community,<br>> which is strictly speaking not necessary and is not part of the <br>> appeals process.<br>><br>> However, I would like to convey here below the answers to your <br>> requests for clarification about the WGCC appeal outcome communication.<br>><br>> I suggest we close this appeal, unless you decide to escalate to the <br>> RIPE Chair within the next two weeks.<br>> Should you have any more question, please contact me directly and I <br>> will be glad to assist.<br>><br>><br>> Kind regards,<br>><br>> Angela Dall'Ara<br>> RIPE NCC Policy Officer<br>><br>><br>> Summary<br>> =======<br>><br>> The WGCC does not find sufficient reason to overturn the ruling of<br>> the Anti-Abuse WG chairs on proposal 2019-04 (Validation of<br>> "abuse-mailbox").<br>><br>> If Jordi wishes to bring a new proposal that he thinks may achieve<br>> consensus, we note that 2019-04 was being considered during an <br>> unusual<br>> time, when we have not had face-to-face meetings due to the COVID-19<br>> pandemic. So it faced difficulties not normally facing a policy<br>> proposal. As always, the Anti-Abuse WG chairs may decide not to adopt<br>> any new proposal.<br>><br>> [Jordi] Could you clarify this paragraph; I can't parse it.<br>><br>> [Answer]: It basically says that you or anyone else may decide to <br>> submit a<br>> new proposal and that it has been recognised that these are unusual<br>> times due to COVID-19.<br>><br>> Scope<br>> =====<br>><br>> The WGCC considers the appeal process to be solely to determine if <br>> the<br>> working group chairs made a reasonable declaration of consensus or<br>> lack of consensus.<br>><br>> The appeal process is able review whether the process was <br>> followed, or<br>> whether there was bias shown in the declaration.<br>><br>> The appeal process will not re-visit any of the points for or against<br>> the proposal.<br>><br>> [Jordi] Following the PDP, I can't agree with this. Can you clarify?<br>><br>> [Answer]: During an appeal, the WGCC determine whether the process has <br>> been<br>> followed or not. They do not need to review content of the discussion<br>> related to the proposal.<br>><br>><br>> Discussion During the Review Phase<br>> ----------------------------------<br>><br>> The need to re-state opinions was explicitly mentioned in the e-mail<br>> moving the policy proposal to the review phase. It is unfortunate <br>> that<br>> the importance of this was not clear to Jordi. Possibly in the future<br>> this can be highlighted in some way.<br>><br>> [Jordi] This is against the PDP. The chairs can even say I must sing a<br>> song, but the only valid process is the one CLEARLY STATED in the PDP.<br>> Nothing else. Otherwise there is a clear subjectivity in the process<br>> which invalidates it.<br>><br>> [Answer]: Exactly. And the PDP does not require the WG Chairs to do <br>> anything<br>> during the Review Phase. The explicit invite to re-state opinions<br>> was an extra service.<br>><br>><br>> New Policy Proposal<br>> -------------------<br>><br>> In principle there is nothing to prevent Jordi or anyone else from<br>> submitting an updated version of 2019-04. However, in the Address<br>> Policy working group having submitted an unsuccessful policy proposal<br>> did prejudice the working group against accepting other submissions.<br>> So there is some possible concern that an updated version would <br>> have a<br>> more difficult time.<br>><br>> There are many factors to balance when deciding what proposals to<br>> accept, and the work of balancing them is up to the working group<br>> chairs. So we do _not_ explicitly request that the Anti-Abuse working<br>> group chairs adopt any subsequent policy proposals. We _do_ ask that<br>> they give extra consideration to the unusual circumstances that we <br>> are<br>> attempting to make policies in.<br>><br>> We do not have any recommendation to Jordi whether he or anyone else<br>> should submit an updated version of 2019-04.<br>><br>> [Jordi] I can't parse this. It looks contradictory. Previous text seems<br>> that is ok to the co-chairs to reject a new version, but here it is<br>> clearly stated that anyone can do it? Are we talking about a new version<br>> of the same proposal or a new proposal?<br>><br>> [Answer]: It means it is up to you (or anyone else) to consider <br>> submitting a<br>> NEW proposal. And it is up to the WG chairs of the respective WG to<br>> accept such a new proposal or not.<br>><br>><br>><br>><br>> Appeal discussion<br>> -----------------<br>><br>> [Jordi] 3 co-chairs have recused themselves. Is that meaning that all <br>> the discussion has been done in a different mailing list apart from <br>> the WGCC ?<br>><br>> [Answer]: The discussion has been done on Zoom meetings, not on the <br>> WGCC mailing list.<br>><br>><br>><br>><br>> On 26/10/2020 09:50, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via anti-abuse-wg wrote:<br>>> There is also another point that I will like to rise and I just <br>>> noticed, and this is very relevant not just because this appeal, but <br>>> because the appeal process itself.<br>>><br>>> 3 co-chairs have recused themselves. Is that meaning that all the <br>>> discussion has been done in a different mailing list apart from the <br>>> WGCC ? This is an extremely important point for the neutrality of the <br>>> process.<br>>><br>>> There were other WG co-chairs that, during the proposal discussion, <br>>> expressed their inputs on this proposal (never mind was in favor, <br>>> against or neutral). It should be expected that also those co-chairs <br>>> didn't participate in the appeal.<br>>><br>>> I also expected that the co-chairs of the anti-abuse WG should have <br>>> taken the same self-recuse position, in order to show a real <br>>> neutrality/impartiality in the process.<br>>><br>>> All this is clearly showing a lack of impartial appeal process.<br>>><br>>> Regards,<br>>> Jordi<br>>> @jordipalet<br>>><br>>> El 26/10/20 9:40, "anti-abuse-wg en nombre de JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <br>>> via anti-abuse-wg" <a href="mailto:<anti-abuse-wg-bounces@ripe.net" target="_blank"><anti-abuse-wg-bounces@ripe.net</a> en nombre de <br>>> <a href="mailto:anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net>" target="_blank">anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net></a> escribió:<br>>><br>>> Hi Mirjam,<br>>><br>>> See my responses below, in-line as many clarifications are <br>>> clearly required, not just because this appeal, but because there is <br>>> a misjudgment of the PDP itself.<br>>><br>>> Regards,<br>>> Jordi<br>>> @jordipalet<br>>><br>>><br>>><br>>> El 26/10/20 9:07, <a href="mailto:"Mirjam Kuehne" <mir@zu-hause.nl>" target="_blank">"Mirjam Kuehne" <mir@zu-hause.nl></a> escribió:<br>>><br>>> Dear Jordi,<br>>><br>>> Regarding the appeal you submitted on 5 October to the RIPE <br>>> Anti-Abuse<br>>> Working Group mailing list, I would like to inform you about <br>>> the<br>>> decision of the RIPE Working Group Chairs Collective <br>>> (according to the<br>>> procedure as defined in ripe-710).<br>>><br>>> [Jordi] I don't think the PDP has been followed in full for this <br>>> appeal. For example, there was not announcement of the publication of <br>>> the appeal in the web site.<br>>><br>>> The WG Chairs Collective (WGCC) decided to uphold the <br>>> decision of the<br>>> Co-Chairs of the Anti-Abuse Working Group. Please find below <br>>> their<br>>> detailed response.<br>>><br>>> Kind regards,<br>>> Mirjam Kühne<br>>> RIPE Chair<br>>> ========<br>>><br>>><br>>> Summary<br>>> =======<br>>><br>>> The WGCC does not find sufficient reason to overturn the <br>>> ruling of<br>>> the Anti-Abuse WG chairs on proposal 2019-04 (Validation of<br>>> "abuse-mailbox").<br>>><br>>> If Jordi wishes to bring a new proposal that he thinks may <br>>> achieve<br>>> consensus, we note that 2019-04 was being considered during <br>>> an unusual<br>>> time, when we have not had face-to-face meetings due to the <br>>> COVID-19<br>>> pandemic. So it faced difficulties not normally facing a policy<br>>> proposal. As always, the Anti-Abuse WG chairs may decide not <br>>> to adopt<br>>> any new proposal.<br>>><br>>> [Jordi] Could you clarify this paragraph; I can't parse it.<br>>><br>>> Scope<br>>> =====<br>>><br>>> The WGCC considers the appeal process to be solely to <br>>> determine if the<br>>> working group chairs made a reasonable declaration of <br>>> consensus or<br>>> lack of consensus.<br>>><br>>> The appeal process is able review whether the process was <br>>> followed, or<br>>> whether there was bias shown in the declaration.<br>>><br>>> The appeal process will not re-visit any of the points for <br>>> or against<br>>> the proposal.<br>>><br>>> [Jordi] Following the PDP, I can't agree with this. Can you <br>>> clarify?<br>>><br>>> Discussion<br>>> ==========<br>>><br>>> The appeal submitted includes several points that the WGCC <br>>> found<br>>> important to consider. These are discussed here. Points <br>>> outside of the<br>>> scope of the appeal process are omitted.<br>>><br>>><br>>> RIPE NCC Impact Analysis<br>>> ------------------------<br>>><br>>> The appeal will not review the accuracy of the RIPE NCC impact<br>>> analysis. The WGCC defers to the expertise of the RIPE NCC <br>>> staff who<br>>> performed the analysis and the members of the Anti-Abuse WG who<br>>> received the analysis.<br>>><br>>> Further, an impact analysis is information intended to be <br>>> helpful to<br>>> decide whether to adopt a policy. The RIPE community is free <br>>> to assign<br>>> whatever weight it wishes.<br>>><br>>> [Jordi] However, according to this, the co-chairs should also <br>>> consider that the justification provided by the author against the <br>>> objections is clearly demonstrating that the analysis impact is wrong <br>>> in certain aspects, so those objections can't be accepted as valid.<br>>><br>>> Discussion During the Review Phase<br>>> ----------------------------------<br>>><br>>> The need to re-state opinions was explicitly mentioned in <br>>> the e-mail<br>>> moving the policy proposal to the review phase. It is <br>>> unfortunate that<br>>> the importance of this was not clear to Jordi. Possibly in <br>>> the future<br>>> this can be highlighted in some way.<br>>><br>>> [Jordi] This is against the PDP. The chairs can even say I must <br>>> sing a song, but the only valid process is the one CLEARLY STATED in <br>>> the PDP. Nothing else. Otherwise there is a clear subjectivity in the <br>>> process which invalidates it.<br>>><br>>><br>>> Timing of Consensus Declaration<br>>> -------------------------------<br>>><br>>> Jordi mentions several possible changes to the policy <br>>> proposal which<br>>> may have led to consensus. He suggests that the declaration of<br>>> consensus was made too soon.<br>>><br>>> We recognize that this is a bit of an odd time, due to <br>>> COVID-19. This<br>>> has removed one of our valuable tools, the face-to-face <br>>> meetings. The<br>>> already-tricky job of the working group chairs in the PDP <br>>> has been<br>>> made harder.<br>>><br>>> We rely on the chairs of the WG involved to decide whether <br>>> or not a<br>>> proposal is likely to ever reach consensus. There are no <br>>> guidelines<br>>> given for this decision.<br>>><br>>> We find that the Anti-Abuse WG chairs were reasonable in the <br>>> timing of<br>>> declaring that there is no consensus.<br>>><br>>><br>>> Specific Points in Conclusion<br>>> -----------------------------<br>>><br>>> The conclusion states:<br>>><br>>> 1. It is not acceptable to declare lack of consensus and at <br>>> the same<br>>> time recognize that there was “some clear support for <br>>> the policy<br>>> during the Discussion Phase”.<br>>><br>>> This is not true. Having support for a policy does not <br>>> _necessarily_<br>>> mean there is consensus.<br>>><br>>> [Jordi] Exactly the same that declaring no-consensus based on <br>>> justifications that have been refuted by the author, is not acceptable.<br>>><br>>> 2. It is not acceptable to, due to the lack of messages in <br>>> the Review<br>>> Phase, instead of extending it, considering the summer <br>>> vacations<br>>> period, declare lack of consensus.<br>>><br>>> We find the judgment of the Anti-Abuse WG chairs to be <br>>> reasonable in<br>>> not extending the Review Phase.<br>>><br>>> [Jordi] Based on what? Because this is even clearly against the <br>>> text of the co-chairs decision. You also are recognizing across the <br>>> text that the circumstances during the Covid are special, so how come <br>>> then it should be acceptable not to extend the review phase <br>>> considering the lack of responses, and the summer period in addition <br>>> to the Covid itself?<br>>><br>>> 3. It is not acceptable to accept repeated objections as <br>>> valid when<br>>> have been already refuted in a previous phase.<br>>><br>>> The consensus declaration should defer to the community and <br>>> what they<br>>> consider valid. It appears to have done so in this case.<br>>><br>>> [Jordi] Once more, lack of consensus can't be determined based <br>>> on objections which are invalid as they have been reasonably refuted <br>>> by the author and even other community members.<br>>><br>>> 4. It is not acceptable to, considering the PDP (“The PDP is <br>>> designed<br>>> so that compromises can be made and genuine consensus <br>>> achieved”),<br>>> subjectively decide that “regardless of possible edits, <br>>> reaching<br>>> consensus in the short or medium term”, when there are <br>>> possible<br>>> ways to address the objections, which have anyway <br>>> already being<br>>> addressed.<br>>><br>>> We find the judgment of the Anti-Abuse WG chairs to be <br>>> reasonable in<br>>> declaring a lack of consensus.<br>>><br>>><br>>> [Jordi] This is unacceptable. If the discussion shows that <br>>> changes to the proposal can bring a new version which may achieve <br>>> consensus, then it should be allowed. We know that different <br>>> proposals have taken different time and different number of versions <br>>> to achieve consensus, so such decision about if a proposal can reach <br>>> or not consensus, can't be based on a subjective decision.<br>>><br>>><br>>> New Policy Proposal<br>>> -------------------<br>>><br>>> In principle there is nothing to prevent Jordi or anyone <br>>> else from<br>>> submitting an updated version of 2019-04. However, in the <br>>> Address<br>>> Policy working group having submitted an unsuccessful policy <br>>> proposal<br>>> did prejudice the working group against accepting other <br>>> submissions.<br>>> So there is some possible concern that an updated version <br>>> would have a<br>>> more difficult time.<br>>><br>>> There are many factors to balance when deciding what <br>>> proposals to<br>>> accept, and the work of balancing them is up to the working <br>>> group<br>>> chairs. So we do _not_ explicitly request that the <br>>> Anti-Abuse working<br>>> group chairs adopt any subsequent policy proposals. We _do_ <br>>> ask that<br>>> they give extra consideration to the unusual circumstances <br>>> that we are<br>>> attempting to make policies in.<br>>><br>>> We do not have any recommendation to Jordi whether he or <br>>> anyone else<br>>> should submit an updated version of 2019-04.<br>>><br>>> [Jordi] I can't parse this. It looks contradictory. Previous <br>>> text seems that is ok to the co-chairs to reject a new version, but <br>>> here it is clearly stated that anyone can do it? Are we talking about <br>>> a new version of the same proposal or a new proposal?<br>>><br>>> Working Group Chairs Excluded<br>>> ==============================<br>>><br>>> The working group chairs of the Anti-Abuse working group <br>>> were not part<br>>> of the discussions regarding the appeal.<br>>><br>>> A number of other working group chairs recused themselves <br>>> from the<br>>> appeal. These were:<br>>><br>>> * Erik Bais<br>>> * Gert Doering<br>>> * Denis Walker<br>>><br>>> In addition, Mirjam Kühne and Niall O'Reilly recused <br>>> themselves from<br>>> discussion and writing of the appeal.<br>>><br>>><br>>> Recommendation to All RIPE WG Chairs<br>>> ====================================<br>>><br>>> We recommend that all RIPE WG Chairs provide extra help for <br>>> all policy<br>>> proposals while we are struggling to deal with lack of <br>>> face-to-face<br>>> contact. The form of this help will vary depending on the <br>>> proposal.<br>>> The rest of the WGCC is available to discuss any topics <br>>> related to<br>>> this if any WG chairs want additional feedback or ideas.<br>>><br>>> This advice does not strictly fall within the scope of the <br>>> appeal, but<br>>> the appeal brought the issue to the attention of the WGCC. <br>>> We consider<br>>> it important to mention here.<br>>><br>>><br>>><br>>><br>>><br>>><br>>> **********************************************<br>>> IPv4 is over<br>>> Are you ready for the new Internet ?<br>>> <a href="http://www.theipv6company.com" data-saferedirecturl="redir.hsp?url=%68%74%74%70%3A%2F%2F%77%77%77%2E%74%68%65%69%70%76%36%63%6F%6D%70%61%6E%79%2E%63%6F%6D" target="_blank">http://www.theipv6company.com</a><br>>> The IPv6 Company<br>>><br>>> This electronic message contains information which may be <br>>> privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the <br>>> exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further <br>>> non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of <br>>> the contents of this information, even if partially, including <br>>> attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a <br>>> criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that <br>>> any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this <br>>> information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly <br>>> prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply <br>>> to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.<br>>><br>>><br>>><br>>><br>>><br>>><br>>><br>>><br>>> **********************************************<br>>> IPv4 is over<br>>> Are you ready for the new Internet ?<br>>> <a href="http://www.theipv6company.com" data-saferedirecturl="redir.hsp?url=%68%74%74%70%3A%2F%2F%77%77%77%2E%74%68%65%69%70%76%36%63%6F%6D%70%61%6E%79%2E%63%6F%6D" target="_blank">http://www.theipv6company.com</a><br>>> The IPv6 Company<br>>><br>>> This electronic message contains information which may be privileged <br>>> or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive <br>>> use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty <br>>> authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents <br>>> of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is <br>>> strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you <br>>> are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, <br>>> distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if <br>>> partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be <br>>> considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original <br>>> sender to inform about this communication and delete it.<br>>><br>>><br>>><br>>><br>>><br>><br>><br><br></div></blockquote></body></html>