[anti-abuse-wg] Bringing Law Enforcement Into the RIPE Community

I realise Denis has already answered some of this, but...

On 01/08/2017 20:58, Sascha Luck [ml] wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 01, 2017 at 06:31:07PM +0200, Sander Steffann wrote:
>> If you dislike the engagement that RIPE NCC has with external
>> organisations (see
>> https://www.ripe.net/about-us/what-we-do/engagement-external-organisations)
>> then the RIPE NCC General Meeting and/or exec-board at ripe.net seem the
>> appropriate places to provide feedback. I don't think the RIPE
>> anti-abuse working group is the right place for that.
> 
> 
> As far as the actions of the NCC board go ,you're right, that
> should go to members-discuss (Not to the board, I want to see
> some debate on this, not some boilerplate from the board).
> 
> The article originally linked by Brian does mix the RIPE
> community and the RIPE NCC though, even more so as the author
> seems confused about who he speaks for:
> 
> "Nine years later, I'm working for the RIPE NCC's External
> Relations team to bring the RIPE community and the LEA community
> closer together."

Yes, that's part of the role of the RIPE NCC's role, especially for the
External Relations team, community building and expanding. This is
embodied in a number of activities, including RIPE Meetings.

> On the RIPE community side, I find these statements problematic:
> 
> "[LEAs] also have a right to help shape RIPE Policy using the
> Policy Development Process."
> 
> They do? My understanding of the PDP is that *individuals* make
> policy proposals and *individuals* discuss them. Is this no
> longer the case? Is RIPE policy now made by lobby groups and other
> "interested" organisations? And, yes, I am aware that individuals
> may be fronting for an organisation, this does not, in my
> understanding, mean their voice carries any more weight.

They absolutely do. Of course, as you rightly point out, it's all
individuals, but it would be crazy to think that every individual who is
involved in the PDP is doing so as a private citizen. Part of what
influences me in any discussion is what the impact of that proposal
might be on my organisation, as well as the Internet as a whole.

The point here is that LEAs and their staff are members of the RIPE
Community and a number of people have worked hard for quite some time to
persuade them of that and to persuade them to use the PDP. Just like any
other community member. This is progress.

> "Part of my job is to help LEAs understand this process and how their
> suggestions on changing policy would impact the broader RIPE community,
> such as making changes to the RIPE Database, for example, that would
> make it easier for them to find the closest service provider to an end
> user engaged in criminal
> activity. This isn't special treatment, though �the RIPE NCC also helps
> governments, network operators, banks, business owners or anyone else
> interested in submitting a policy proposal do these things as well. It's
> part of our job as
> the RIPE secretariat."
> 
> I was under the impression that this is the function of the NCC
> Impact Statement within the PDP. Neither does ripe-642 mention
> any discussions with or "help" from the NCC  prior to the working
> group process. Perhaps someone can amplify on this?

As Denis points out, the NCC have worked with community for years to
help with proposals in the same way that WG Chairs work with them. The
aim is to bring proposals to a WG in the best initial form they can have.

And this is help, it isn't mandatory, of course. It's there because we
know that not everyone is as familiar with the PDP or how the NCC
worksas everyone else. Equally it can be useful where English is not a
proposer's first language. It isn't a full impact statement and it
doesn't change the PDP.

A proposer can talk to or work with *anyone* before submitting their
proposal, why shouldn't the NCC be included in this?

Brian
Co-Chair, AA-WG