[anti-abuse-wg] Draft Anti-Abuse WG Minutes ? RIPE 61

I am rather late to this thread as it was just drawn to my attention
elsewhere.

1. Richard Cox's concerns were entirely valid, and the abuse issues
documented at http://www.spamhaus.org/Sbl/listings.lasso?isp=RIPE -
mostly PI / PA blocks, several as large as /15, can't be wished away by
removing critics of this WG from a co-chair post.

2. I would echo Peter's concerns about this being brought up as AOB,
discussed (or rather, not discussed) in overtime with very few people in
the room, leading to the removal of a co-chair.  A much wider consensus
should have been obtained - at least by discussion on this list if not
at the plenary.

This was not consensus. WG participants (and I count several who are in
the anti abuse community, engage regularly with RIRs at other fora, but
don't typically have the budget to travel to RIPE) should have been
consulted before this.

Yes, nobody else had much to say about this removal, so I'll take this
opportunity to comment.

About Richard Cox's removal and about two other meta issues.

First - the prevailing attitude I have seen from at least some
participants (this is not "us vs them" in terms of routing / dns people
vs abuse people .. you have colleagues in your own organizations who
will disagree with your views - especially Shane, I won't speak for Paul
Vixie but I am not at all sure he'd agree with you about your comment,
even after its rephrase).

Second - the mantra, meme, fallacy etc of the "we are not the XYZ
police" that I keep hearing cited.  It would be fun indeed if a bank
manager sanctioned a loan for say a quarter of a million dollars (lets
say comparable to an allocation for a /15) and then baldly state that
he's not the document police .. That presentation I saw discussed is
what I'd call partially shutting the barn door long after the horses,
plural, have bolted.

That damage's been done, a lot of IP space has been poisoned.  It is
high time to realize that shooting the messenger is not the best way to
deal with such a situation.

	srs


Peter Koch wrote:

> 
>     On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 03:47:42PM +0000, Brian Nisbet wrote:
> 
> 
>         Peter Koch said the session was already overrun by 15 minutes and this
>         delicate issue should be resolved at another time.
> 
>     I'd like to clarify that my point was that this topic was placed under AOB
>     _and_ mostly dealt with during overtime, which, absence of written process
>     and procedures nonwithstanding, did not meet my expectations and experiences
>     of appropriateness given delicacy.  That said, I consider the issue closed.


JD Falk wrote:
> On Dec 15, 2010, at 3:15 PM, Shane Kerr wrote:
> 
>> I think that my point was that there is a disconnect between people
>> working on anti-abuse and the ISPs, not about the Anti-Abuse Working
>> Group or its participants. I might not have said that of course...
> 
> Many people who work for ISPs would agree.  It's often simply a matter of scale 
> and imagination....
>