[anti-abuse-wg] 2013-01 Discussion Period extended until 26 June 2013 (Openness about Policy Violations)

Hi Peter,

>> There has been very little discussion on the below and there is just 
>> under a week remaining in the discussion phase. So, now is your time to 
>> talk about it!
> 
> you asked for it.  The policy text needs a copy edit - "publicly
> published" is confusingly confusing.

:-)

>>> -rewording of the section 1.0
> 
> I believe this part makes sense, except that It doesn't clearly state
> that the resolution time ought to be part of the statistics, as well.

+1

> I'm not convinced that we need a policy for this, though.

Usually I would agree with you and keep operational stuff out of policy-land, but in this case I think having a community-defined policy on openness / stats about how the NCC is handling violations of the policies *we* defined is better.

>>> -new section 2.0 and consequent renumbering of the other sections
> 
> This part is worrying. First because it defers details to the implementation
> and second because it suggests to give the reporting party unconditional
> access to an unspecified level of detail.

Can you suggest text for where the limits should be? I would personally agree to a very limited level of detail, but I agree that this is nog clear in the current proposal text.

>  What's the legitimate interest
> of the reporting party in monitoring the progress?

In the current situation reporting parties don't see anything, which gives the feeling that all such reports disappear into a black hole. If we want to keep (or restore) community involvement in the care-taking of our shared resources then showing those that care enough to report problems that we (community+NCC) take their input seriously is important. We need to provide some feedback for this. I certainly don't mean to show all the (potentially confidential) detail of how the report is handled. Maybe an appropriate list of progress states can be defined?

> What level of
> detail is envisioned? Without that being specified (and available for
> review) I do not support the progress of this proposal.

Please provide text.

Thanks,
Sander