[anti-abuse-wg] Authorities, or lack thereof

In message <51C2EEAF.9010907 at heanet.ie>, 
Brian Nisbet <brian.nisbet at heanet.ie> wrote:

>This WG has no greater authority to direct or request anything from the 
>NCC than any other member of the community. The WG is not, explicitly, a 
>group within the community that directly deals with abuse. It is a group 
>of people who are interested in the subject, who may well work together 
>to create policies or documents or form a better understanding of the 
>issue, but it is not a created group to deal with abuse.
>
>Now, to go a bit further here. The members of the WG can ask the NCC to 
>do a particular thing. Depending on the thing that might be an action 
>item that arises out of the mailing list or a meeting (eg Could the NCC 
>please clarify under exactly what circumstances an LIR could be closed 
>or deregistered).

So, the WG may, explicitly, send requests to the NCC, yes?

>The WG cannot say "we do not like this operator, 
>please shut them down"...

Cannot or will not?

I am not just playing with words here.  I ernestly would like to know if
there is anything... anything at all... codified into any of the written
rules or bylaws of either RIPE or this WG, in particular, that explicitly
prohibits this or any other WG, as a whole, and as a WG, from _saying_
any bloody thing it likes.  I could well and truly understand if you
were to tell me that if the WG said `X' or the WG said `Y' then it would
only garner a laugh all around and/or general condemnation from a solid
majority of the remainder of the RIPE membership.  But that would be
quite different from the statement that you just made, which, the way
I read it, sounds like this WG is _obligated_ to utterly refrain from
making certain kinds of public comments and/or certain kinds of requests
to NCC.

I probably should not try to anticipate your response to the above, but
I will anyway...

I suspect that you will say that I am corerct that there is nothing
_explicit_ that prohibits the WG from saying any bloody thing it likes,
but that it would simply be extraordinarily impolitic for this WG to
go about making such requests or comments on specific operators or
allocations, and that doing so might only be likely to result in the
WG meeting its own untimely demise, at the request of the general RIPE
membership.  Assuming so, I for one might be willing to run that risk,
even if others... perhaps many others... might not be so inclined.

>in the same way the Routing WG cannot say "we 
>require all members of the NCC to abandon BGP". That is not what WGs in 
>the RIPE community are for.

See above.  Even I can well and truly see that it would be extraordinarily
impolitic if the Routing WG were to make that specific declaration.  They
would be laughed and ignored into oblivion.  But my question remains...
Other than the fact that those consequences would predictably ensue for
that WG, I mean if it were to make such a (clearly unworable) declaration,
is there anything specific that prohibits that WG from speaking its co-
llective mind in any way it chooses?

>The WG can of course make the NCC aware of a bad operator

With what effect, exactly?  To what end?  Do you see what I mean?  If such
information transmission (to NCC) occurs, and if no allocations ever change
as a result, then what was the point?

Also, when you say that 'the Anti-Abuse WG" may do so, do you mean only
the individual members thereof, acting only as individual members?  That
seems to me to be what you were implying or intending to say, i.e. that
any individual WG member can send over a note to NCC telling then about
a "bad operator".

Obviously, any individual member may elect to do that, however _individuals_
obviously carry a lot less weight than an entire WG.  Has there ever been
any instance in the history of the Anti-Abuse WG in which the WG _as a
whole_ provided a package of information to NCC regarding, as you put it,
a "bad operator"?

>First off, no offence is taken. :)

OK, good.  Thank you.  You are a gentleman.

>However, I think your comments here stem from a fundamental 
>misunderstanding of how the community (of which you are a part, 
>regardless of your earlier comments on the list) works. The WG was not 
>set up to up to do those things.

I was arguably not born to do software, but I do anyway.  People and
organizations and institutions do change and evolve, including even in
their goals and missions.

>It has been a handy by-product of 
>sharing information and expertise that reports have been passed on to 
>the NCC, but it's not why we're here. There are 9000+ members of the 
>RIPE NCC and countless others in the community. All of those operators 
>will tell you "my network, my rules" albeit they are forced by law or 
>contract to take other views into consideration. They are not beholden 
>to this or any other WG unless a policy is made or a motion passed by 
>the membership.

Right.  And that is all as it should be.  I am not asking about any
hypothetical new policies that might be enacted.  What about policies
that exist that are simply not being enforced?  And what about open
questions like the one that I think Furio put, i.e. if a new or existing
RIPE member came to RIPE NCC with a request for, say, a /19 with their
explicitly stated intended use being "snowshoe spamming", then what
would happen?

>At no point in the Charter for the AA-WG does it suggest we're here to 
>take back resources, so I'm genuinely very interested to know where this 
>all came from?

It came from the fact that there _do_ exist problems, and with respect to
the specific problems that exist (both within the RIPE region and most
certainly elsewhere as well) _everyone_ seems to constantly be running as
far and as fast away from actually dealing with those problems as it is
humanly possible to do.  In short, to paraphrase an old saying that we
have here on this side of the pond, "It's a tough job, but _somebody_
ought to be doing it."

The problems are problems of network abuse, and of instances where, arguably,
fraud had been perpetrated against RIPE in order to obtain resources.  RIPE
NCC clearly does not want to actually have to deal with any of this, and
I understand that.  For them, it is all just a potential political hornet's
nest, so the absolutely politically safest thing for them to do is to turn
a blind eye and do nothing.  This is to be expected, and I think that
there exists a vast UNDER-appreciation, here and elswhere, of the really
substantial DE-motivating factors that are in play with respect to RIPE NCC
and the problem of dealing with abuse issues.  NCC has real and clear
incentives to try to bury all of these issues and questions and problems,
as deeply as possible.

So, um, let me see...  we have instances of network abuse... instances
that arguably go against policies that already exist and that have
already been ratified by the RIPE membership as a whole.  But there
is little or no enforcement of said rules on the part of RIPE NCC,
which, quite naturally, finds it politically safest not to rock the
boat in any way, ever.  But then we have this thing called the "Anti-
Abuse Working Group" which, as you have been kind enough to clarify
for me, has no authority to do anything in particular about any actual
instances of acutal abuse, and which rather must content itself with
occasionally making recommendations for specific _new_ policies to the
RIPE membership as a whole, an activity which, I gather it does with
a relatively high degree of infrequency.  Meanwhile the problems continue,
even as everyone and his brother seems to be out buying ten foot poles
with which they may avoid touching any of the real, current, and press-
ing problems.

So anyway, yes, if you wish to assert that I might in some ways be en-
couraging a more expansive view of the charter, mission, and goals of this
WG, then I plead guilty as charged, however I throw myself upon the mercy
of the court and ask for clemency on the basis of that fact that it is
perhaps a natual mistake for an outsider to make to assume... apparently
improperly... that a working group going by the name "Anti-Abuse" might
actually wish to get its hands dirty from time to time, you know, by
actually taking actual actions with respect to actual and ongoing instances
of abuse, including instances which are already well and truly defined as
such.


Regards,
rfg