[anti-abuse-wg] Report & Co-Chair's Decision on Proposal 2019-04
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Report & Co-Chair's Decision on Proposal 2019-04
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Report & Co-Chair's Decision on Proposal 2019-04
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
JJS JJS
no0484985 at gmail.com
Mon Sep 7 17:27:14 CEST 2020
That fact that you classify my email as being on the "no" argument, shows how misguided you are. Not for one second was I against this proposal, just the point about mandating emails. There is no consensus "against" this proposal. Your methodology of surveying views is so warped, it is unbelievable. ------ On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 1:19 AM Brian Nisbet <brian.nisbet at heanet.ie> wrote: > Colleagues, > > A few weeks ago we reached the end of the latest review phase for 2019-04. > The Co-Chairs have worked closely with the NCC Policy Development Office > since then to try to make a decision on this policy. This email contains a > report on the Discussion Phase and Review Phase and then a final decision > which, we believe, is supported by the activity during those phases. > > As always, this is underpinned by the RIPE PDP - > https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-710 > > Discussion Phase: > > There was some clear support for the policy during the Discussion Phase. > This came from: > > Serge Droz, who felt that it would help in a number of cases and that an > inability to answer an e-mail every six month probably indicated underlying > issues. He also felt it would allow the community to understand who was > doing good work and who wasn't, and it will prevent organisations from > saying they never received a report. He also pointed out some of the > difference in reaction between the security and operator communities on > this policy. > > Carlos Friacas, agreed that it would help, but not solve all problems. He > also flagged that if "deregistration" was not a possible outcome for a > continuous failure to validate, then the outcome of transparency would > still be positive, but did say that must be balanced against the NCC Impact > Analysis. > > Jordi Palet Martinez, the proposer, was, of course, in favour, but also > reacted to a number of voices against the proposal: > - The job of the RIPE NCC is to implement the policies agreed by the > community. I believe is perfectly understandable the need to avoid using > manual forms which don't follow a single standard, which means extra work > for *everyone*. (Responding to Nick Hilliard) > - The actual policy has a bigger level of micro-management, by setting > one year and not allowing the NCC to change that. (Responding to Nick > Hilliard) > - The problem of a form is that is not standard. This is economically > non-sustainable and means that the cost of the abuse cases is on the back > of the one actually reporting. (Responding to No No) > - The actual validation is not working, it is just a technical validation > (responding to Gert Doering) > - The community prefers to do things in steps, we initially asked for an > abuse mailbox, we then added a technical validation, now we are asking for > a better validation. I am not asking to verify if you handle abuse case or > not and I am not asking to take any new actions. > > Angel Gonzalez Berdasco suuported the proposal, but also made multiple > comments on a different approach, including an abuse-uri and highlighted > that standarising the communications was important. > > A number of people spoke in clear opposition. > > Nick Hilliard stated that it is not the job of the RIPE NCC to tell its > members how to handle abuse reports. He further said that the is > self-contradictory, intrusive into NCC membership business processes and > there is no compelling reason to believe that the proposal will end up > reducing the amount of abuse on the internet. > > Gert Doering said that if people *do not want* to handle abuse reports, > this proposal will not make them and that cases of misconfiguration are > already caught today. > > No No did not want anyone to be restricted in how they received abuse > reports. > > Michele Neylon opposed the proposal and agreed with the points made by > Nick. > > A number of other people posted either with mixed comments, or in a way > that did not make it clear where they stood on the proposal: > > Job Snijders, Elad Cohen, Alistair Mackenzie, Suresh Ramasubramanian, > Hans-Martin Mosner, Shane Kerr, Sascha Luck, Arash Naderpur, Richard > Clayton, Alessandro Vesely, Randy Bush > > The Review Phase of the proposal lasted from 20 July 2020 to 18 August > 2020. > > There were 14 messages received during the review phase. Out of which, 3 > were from the PDO, 1 was myself's and 2 were Jordi’s requesting > clarification on the Impact Analysis. > > - There was no messages of support to the proposal. > > There was one message stating that the form is more beneficial than email > to report abuse because it always reaches the host to which Jordi tried to > address stating that email can be automated whilst forms can not. > > - There were opposing arguments based on two fronts: > > 1) Nick Hilliard and Erik Bais commented that the effort and cost to > implement this proposal are too great in relations to the benefits that are > alleged. > > 2) Michele Neylon and Arash Naderpour commented that they oppose forcing > operators to use only email for handling abuse reports and internal > handling procedures should be solely defined by the operator. > > Nick Hilliard and Michele Neylon also requested the proposal to be dropped > as concerns raised over the last 18 months have not been addressed and > tweaking this proposal would not add any value. > > There was no attempt to address the opposing arguments above during the > review phase. > > With all of this in mind, and with the continued failure of any kind of > consensus from the working group, the Co-Chairs have decided to withdraw > this proposal. As always we would welcome proposals on this and other > matters, however we do not feel that there is any likelihood of 2019-04, > regardless of possible edits, reaching consensus in the short or medium > term. > > Alireza, Brian, Tobias > Co-Chairs, RIPE AA-WG > > Brian Nisbet > > Service Operations Manager > > HEAnet CLG, Ireland's National Education and Research Network > > 1st Floor, 5 George's Dock, IFSC, Dublin D01 X8N7, Ireland > > +35316609040 brian.nisbet at heanet.ie www.heanet.ie > > Registered in Ireland, No. 275301. CRA No. 20036270 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/anti-abuse-wg/attachments/20200908/98461131/attachment.html>
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Report & Co-Chair's Decision on Proposal 2019-04
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Report & Co-Chair's Decision on Proposal 2019-04
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]