[anti-abuse-wg] Appeal against the Anti-Abuse WG Co-chairs decisions on proposal 2019-04 (Validation of “abuse-mailbox”)
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Appeal against the Anti-Abuse WG Co-chairs decisions on proposal 2019-04 (Validation of “abuse-mailbox”)
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Draft Anti-Abuse WG Minutes from RIPE 81
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Alex de Joode
alex at idgara.nl
Thu Nov 12 17:12:41 CET 2020
Good idea! Let's also use a generic name 'Spammer' for contributors to this list. </sarcasm>-- IDGARA | Alex de Joode | alex at idgara.nl | +31651108221 On Thu, 12-11-2020 13h 52min, PP <phishphucker at storey.ovh> wrote: > Is it possible to move a motion to rename this working group from Anti > Abuse WG to "The promotion of abuse working group"? > > Because this entire working group is a farce. > > > On 12/11/2020 11:31 pm, Angela Dall'Ara wrote: > > Dear Jordi, > > > > > > The WGCC task, as defined in Section 4 of the PDP, is it to determine > > “whether to uphold or reject appeals”. > > In addition to that, in this first occurrence of an appeal being > > submitted, they chose to provide an extended explanation to you and > > the community, > > which is strictly speaking not necessary and is not part of the > > appeals process. > > > > However, I would like to convey here below the answers to your > > requests for clarification about the WGCC appeal outcome communication. > > > > I suggest we close this appeal, unless you decide to escalate to the > > RIPE Chair within the next two weeks. > > Should you have any more question, please contact me directly and I > > will be glad to assist. > > > > > > Kind regards, > > > > Angela Dall'Ara > > RIPE NCC Policy Officer > > > > > > Summary > > ======= > > > > The WGCC does not find sufficient reason to overturn the ruling of > > the Anti-Abuse WG chairs on proposal 2019-04 (Validation of > > "abuse-mailbox"). > > > > If Jordi wishes to bring a new proposal that he thinks may achieve > > consensus, we note that 2019-04 was being considered during an > > unusual > > time, when we have not had face-to-face meetings due to the COVID-19 > > pandemic. So it faced difficulties not normally facing a policy > > proposal. As always, the Anti-Abuse WG chairs may decide not to adopt > > any new proposal. > > > > [Jordi] Could you clarify this paragraph; I can't parse it. > > > > [Answer]: It basically says that you or anyone else may decide to > > submit a > > new proposal and that it has been recognised that these are unusual > > times due to COVID-19. > > > > Scope > > ===== > > > > The WGCC considers the appeal process to be solely to determine if > > the > > working group chairs made a reasonable declaration of consensus or > > lack of consensus. > > > > The appeal process is able review whether the process was > > followed, or > > whether there was bias shown in the declaration. > > > > The appeal process will not re-visit any of the points for or against > > the proposal. > > > > [Jordi] Following the PDP, I can't agree with this. Can you clarify? > > > > [Answer]: During an appeal, the WGCC determine whether the process has > > been > > followed or not. They do not need to review content of the discussion > > related to the proposal. > > > > > > Discussion During the Review Phase > > ---------------------------------- > > > > The need to re-state opinions was explicitly mentioned in the e-mail > > moving the policy proposal to the review phase. It is unfortunate > > that > > the importance of this was not clear to Jordi. Possibly in the future > > this can be highlighted in some way. > > > > [Jordi] This is against the PDP. The chairs can even say I must sing a > > song, but the only valid process is the one CLEARLY STATED in the PDP. > > Nothing else. Otherwise there is a clear subjectivity in the process > > which invalidates it. > > > > [Answer]: Exactly. And the PDP does not require the WG Chairs to do > > anything > > during the Review Phase. The explicit invite to re-state opinions > > was an extra service. > > > > > > New Policy Proposal > > ------------------- > > > > In principle there is nothing to prevent Jordi or anyone else from > > submitting an updated version of 2019-04. However, in the Address > > Policy working group having submitted an unsuccessful policy proposal > > did prejudice the working group against accepting other submissions. > > So there is some possible concern that an updated version would > > have a > > more difficult time. > > > > There are many factors to balance when deciding what proposals to > > accept, and the work of balancing them is up to the working group > > chairs. So we do _not_ explicitly request that the Anti-Abuse working > > group chairs adopt any subsequent policy proposals. We _do_ ask that > > they give extra consideration to the unusual circumstances that we > > are > > attempting to make policies in. > > > > We do not have any recommendation to Jordi whether he or anyone else > > should submit an updated version of 2019-04. > > > > [Jordi] I can't parse this. It looks contradictory. Previous text seems > > that is ok to the co-chairs to reject a new version, but here it is > > clearly stated that anyone can do it? Are we talking about a new version > > of the same proposal or a new proposal? > > > > [Answer]: It means it is up to you (or anyone else) to consider > > submitting a > > NEW proposal. And it is up to the WG chairs of the respective WG to > > accept such a new proposal or not. > > > > > > > > > > Appeal discussion > > ----------------- > > > > [Jordi] 3 co-chairs have recused themselves. Is that meaning that all > > the discussion has been done in a different mailing list apart from > > the WGCC ? > > > > [Answer]: The discussion has been done on Zoom meetings, not on the > > WGCC mailing list. > > > > > > > > > > On 26/10/2020 09:50, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via anti-abuse-wg wrote: > >> There is also another point that I will like to rise and I just > >> noticed, and this is very relevant not just because this appeal, but > >> because the appeal process itself. > >> > >> 3 co-chairs have recused themselves. Is that meaning that all the > >> discussion has been done in a different mailing list apart from the > >> WGCC ? This is an extremely important point for the neutrality of the > >> process. > >> > >> There were other WG co-chairs that, during the proposal discussion, > >> expressed their inputs on this proposal (never mind was in favor, > >> against or neutral). It should be expected that also those co-chairs > >> didn't participate in the appeal. > >> > >> I also expected that the co-chairs of the anti-abuse WG should have > >> taken the same self-recuse position, in order to show a real > >> neutrality/impartiality in the process. > >> > >> All this is clearly showing a lack of impartial appeal process. > >> > >> Regards, > >> Jordi > >> @jordipalet > >> > >> El 26/10/20 9:40, "anti-abuse-wg en nombre de JORDI PALET MARTINEZ > >> via anti-abuse-wg" <anti-abuse-wg-bounces at ripe.net en nombre de > >> " target="_blank">anti-abuse-wg at ripe.net> escribió: > >> > >> Hi Mirjam, > >> > >> See my responses below, in-line as many clarifications are > >> clearly required, not just because this appeal, but because there is > >> a misjudgment of the PDP itself. > >> > >> Regards, > >> Jordi > >> @jordipalet > >> > >> > >> > >> El 26/10/20 9:07, " target="_blank">"Mirjam Kuehne" <mir at zu-hause.nl> escribió: > >> > >> Dear Jordi, > >> > >> Regarding the appeal you submitted on 5 October to the RIPE > >> Anti-Abuse > >> Working Group mailing list, I would like to inform you about > >> the > >> decision of the RIPE Working Group Chairs Collective > >> (according to the > >> procedure as defined in ripe-710). > >> > >> [Jordi] I don't think the PDP has been followed in full for this > >> appeal. For example, there was not announcement of the publication of > >> the appeal in the web site. > >> > >> The WG Chairs Collective (WGCC) decided to uphold the > >> decision of the > >> Co-Chairs of the Anti-Abuse Working Group. Please find below > >> their > >> detailed response. > >> > >> Kind regards, > >> Mirjam Kühne > >> RIPE Chair > >> ======== > >> > >> > >> Summary > >> ======= > >> > >> The WGCC does not find sufficient reason to overturn the > >> ruling of > >> the Anti-Abuse WG chairs on proposal 2019-04 (Validation of > >> "abuse-mailbox"). > >> > >> If Jordi wishes to bring a new proposal that he thinks may > >> achieve > >> consensus, we note that 2019-04 was being considered during > >> an unusual > >> time, when we have not had face-to-face meetings due to the > >> COVID-19 > >> pandemic. So it faced difficulties not normally facing a policy > >> proposal. As always, the Anti-Abuse WG chairs may decide not > >> to adopt > >> any new proposal. > >> > >> [Jordi] Could you clarify this paragraph; I can't parse it. > >> > >> Scope > >> ===== > >> > >> The WGCC considers the appeal process to be solely to > >> determine if the > >> working group chairs made a reasonable declaration of > >> consensus or > >> lack of consensus. > >> > >> The appeal process is able review whether the process was > >> followed, or > >> whether there was bias shown in the declaration. > >> > >> The appeal process will not re-visit any of the points for > >> or against > >> the proposal. > >> > >> [Jordi] Following the PDP, I can't agree with this. Can you > >> clarify? > >> > >> Discussion > >> ========== > >> > >> The appeal submitted includes several points that the WGCC > >> found > >> important to consider. These are discussed here. Points > >> outside of the > >> scope of the appeal process are omitted. > >> > >> > >> RIPE NCC Impact Analysis > >> ------------------------ > >> > >> The appeal will not review the accuracy of the RIPE NCC impact > >> analysis. The WGCC defers to the expertise of the RIPE NCC > >> staff who > >> performed the analysis and the members of the Anti-Abuse WG who > >> received the analysis. > >> > >> Further, an impact analysis is information intended to be > >> helpful to > >> decide whether to adopt a policy. The RIPE community is free > >> to assign > >> whatever weight it wishes. > >> > >> [Jordi] However, according to this, the co-chairs should also > >> consider that the justification provided by the author against the > >> objections is clearly demonstrating that the analysis impact is wrong > >> in certain aspects, so those objections can't be accepted as valid. > >> > >> Discussion During the Review Phase > >> ---------------------------------- > >> > >> The need to re-state opinions was explicitly mentioned in > >> the e-mail > >> moving the policy proposal to the review phase. It is > >> unfortunate that > >> the importance of this was not clear to Jordi. Possibly in > >> the future > >> this can be highlighted in some way. > >> > >> [Jordi] This is against the PDP. The chairs can even say I must > >> sing a song, but the only valid process is the one CLEARLY STATED in > >> the PDP. Nothing else. Otherwise there is a clear subjectivity in the > >> process which invalidates it. > >> > >> > >> Timing of Consensus Declaration > >> ------------------------------- > >> > >> Jordi mentions several possible changes to the policy > >> proposal which > >> may have led to consensus. He suggests that the declaration of > >> consensus was made too soon. > >> > >> We recognize that this is a bit of an odd time, due to > >> COVID-19. This > >> has removed one of our valuable tools, the face-to-face > >> meetings. The > >> already-tricky job of the working group chairs in the PDP > >> has been > >> made harder. > >> > >> We rely on the chairs of the WG involved to decide whether > >> or not a > >> proposal is likely to ever reach consensus. There are no > >> guidelines > >> given for this decision. > >> > >> We find that the Anti-Abuse WG chairs were reasonable in the > >> timing of > >> declaring that there is no consensus. > >> > >> > >> Specific Points in Conclusion > >> ----------------------------- > >> > >> The conclusion states: > >> > >> 1. It is not acceptable to declare lack of consensus and at > >> the same > >> time recognize that there was “some clear support for > >> the policy > >> during the Discussion Phase”. > >> > >> This is not true. Having support for a policy does not > >> _necessarily_ > >> mean there is consensus. > >> > >> [Jordi] Exactly the same that declaring no-consensus based on > >> justifications that have been refuted by the author, is not acceptable. > >> > >> 2. It is not acceptable to, due to the lack of messages in > >> the Review > >> Phase, instead of extending it, considering the summer > >> vacations > >> period, declare lack of consensus. > >> > >> We find the judgment of the Anti-Abuse WG chairs to be > >> reasonable in > >> not extending the Review Phase. > >> > >> [Jordi] Based on what? Because this is even clearly against the > >> text of the co-chairs decision. You also are recognizing across the > >> text that the circumstances during the Covid are special, so how come > >> then it should be acceptable not to extend the review phase > >> considering the lack of responses, and the summer period in addition > >> to the Covid itself? > >> > >> 3. It is not acceptable to accept repeated objections as > >> valid when > >> have been already refuted in a previous phase. > >> > >> The consensus declaration should defer to the community and > >> what they > >> consider valid. It appears to have done so in this case. > >> > >> [Jordi] Once more, lack of consensus can't be determined based > >> on objections which are invalid as they have been reasonably refuted > >> by the author and even other community members. > >> > >> 4. It is not acceptable to, considering the PDP (“The PDP is > >> designed > >> so that compromises can be made and genuine consensus > >> achieved”), > >> subjectively decide that “regardless of possible edits, > >> reaching > >> consensus in the short or medium term”, when there are > >> possible > >> ways to address the objections, which have anyway > >> already being > >> addressed. > >> > >> We find the judgment of the Anti-Abuse WG chairs to be > >> reasonable in > >> declaring a lack of consensus. > >> > >> > >> [Jordi] This is unacceptable. If the discussion shows that > >> changes to the proposal can bring a new version which may achieve > >> consensus, then it should be allowed. We know that different > >> proposals have taken different time and different number of versions > >> to achieve consensus, so such decision about if a proposal can reach > >> or not consensus, can't be based on a subjective decision. > >> > >> > >> New Policy Proposal > >> ------------------- > >> > >> In principle there is nothing to prevent Jordi or anyone > >> else from > >> submitting an updated version of 2019-04. However, in the > >> Address > >> Policy working group having submitted an unsuccessful policy > >> proposal > >> did prejudice the working group against accepting other > >> submissions. > >> So there is some possible concern that an updated version > >> would have a > >> more difficult time. > >> > >> There are many factors to balance when deciding what > >> proposals to > >> accept, and the work of balancing them is up to the working > >> group > >> chairs. So we do _not_ explicitly request that the > >> Anti-Abuse working > >> group chairs adopt any subsequent policy proposals. We _do_ > >> ask that > >> they give extra consideration to the unusual circumstances > >> that we are > >> attempting to make policies in. > >> > >> We do not have any recommendation to Jordi whether he or > >> anyone else > >> should submit an updated version of 2019-04. > >> > >> [Jordi] I can't parse this. It looks contradictory. Previous > >> text seems that is ok to the co-chairs to reject a new version, but > >> here it is clearly stated that anyone can do it? Are we talking about > >> a new version of the same proposal or a new proposal? > >> > >> Working Group Chairs Excluded > >> ============================== > >> > >> The working group chairs of the Anti-Abuse working group > >> were not part > >> of the discussions regarding the appeal. > >> > >> A number of other working group chairs recused themselves > >> from the > >> appeal. These were: > >> > >> * Erik Bais > >> * Gert Doering > >> * Denis Walker > >> > >> In addition, Mirjam Kühne and Niall O'Reilly recused > >> themselves from > >> discussion and writing of the appeal. > >> > >> > >> Recommendation to All RIPE WG Chairs > >> ==================================== > >> > >> We recommend that all RIPE WG Chairs provide extra help for > >> all policy > >> proposals while we are struggling to deal with lack of > >> face-to-face > >> contact. The form of this help will vary depending on the > >> proposal. > >> The rest of the WGCC is available to discuss any topics > >> related to > >> this if any WG chairs want additional feedback or ideas. > >> > >> This advice does not strictly fall within the scope of the > >> appeal, but > >> the appeal brought the issue to the attention of the WGCC. > >> We consider > >> it important to mention here. > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> ********************************************** > >> IPv4 is over > >> Are you ready for the new Internet ? > >> http://www.theipv6company.com > >> The IPv6 Company > >> > >> This electronic message contains information which may be > >> privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the > >> exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further > >> non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of > >> the contents of this information, even if partially, including > >> attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a > >> criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that > >> any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this > >> information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly > >> prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply > >> to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it. > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> ********************************************** > >> IPv4 is over > >> Are you ready for the new Internet ? > >> http://www.theipv6company.com > >> The IPv6 Company > >> > >> This electronic message contains information which may be privileged > >> or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive > >> use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty > >> authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents > >> of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is > >> strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you > >> are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, > >> distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if > >> partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be > >> considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original > >> sender to inform about this communication and delete it. > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/anti-abuse-wg/attachments/20201112/e151d40c/attachment.html>
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Appeal against the Anti-Abuse WG Co-chairs decisions on proposal 2019-04 (Validation of “abuse-mailbox”)
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Draft Anti-Abuse WG Minutes from RIPE 81
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]