[anti-abuse-wg] Appeal against the Anti-Abuse WG Co-chairs decisions on proposal 2019-04 (Validation of “abuse-mailbox”)

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).

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.


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.


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.


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.


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.

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.

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.

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.


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.


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.