<html><head><style id="axi-htmleditor-style" type="text/css">p { margin: 0px; }</style></head><body dir="" style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: "Source Sans Pro", sans-serif; background-image: none; background-repeat: repeat; background-attachment: fixed;">Good idea! Let's also use a generic name 'Spammer' for contributors to this list. <div class="x-axi-signature"> </div><div class="x-axi-signature"></sarcasm> <div class="x-axi-signature" style="; font-size: 10pt; font-family: " source="" sans="" pro",="" sans-serif;"="">-- <div>IDGARA | Alex de Joode | alex@idgara.nl | +31651108221 </div></div></div> On Thu, 12-11-2020 13h 52min, PP <phishphucker@storey.ovh> wrote: <blockquote style="margin-left: 10px; padding-left: 10px; border-left: 1px solid #ccc;"><div style="font-family: " source="" sans="" pro",="" sans-serif;="" font-size:="" 10pt;"="">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" <a href="mailto:<anti-abuse-wg-bounces@ripe.net" target="_blank"><anti-abuse-wg-bounces@ripe.net</a> en nombre de >> <a href="mailto:anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net>" target="_blank">anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net></a> 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, <a href="mailto:"Mirjam Kuehne" <mir@zu-hause.nl>" target="_blank">"Mirjam Kuehne" <mir@zu-hause.nl></a> 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 ? >> <a href="http://www.theipv6company.com" data-saferedirecturl="redir.hsp?url=%68%74%74%70%3A%2F%2F%77%77%77%2E%74%68%65%69%70%76%36%63%6F%6D%70%61%6E%79%2E%63%6F%6D" target="_blank">http://www.theipv6company.com</a> >> 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 ? >> <a href="http://www.theipv6company.com" data-saferedirecturl="redir.hsp?url=%68%74%74%70%3A%2F%2F%77%77%77%2E%74%68%65%69%70%76%36%63%6F%6D%70%61%6E%79%2E%63%6F%6D" target="_blank">http://www.theipv6company.com</a> >> 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. >> >> >> >> >> > > </div></blockquote></body></html>