[rpd] Decisions ... Abuse contact

[Gaby Giner]

Hi all,

I absolutely share Lamiaa's sentiments. Even if one is to make the case
that the customs/mores/procedures/culture is different in other regions and
AFRINIC thus this policy should be implemented here, it's already gotten a
bad rap from all the other times it has been tried to be passed in other
regions. Additionally, if it wasn't passed in other regions, and people
there opposed it and now people HERE are echoing the same things, then that
already implicitly tells you that maybe the policy isn't really the best
fit/thing (whatever you wanna call it) for the region.

It's like we're chasing something down the rabbit hole what with all the
weaseling and diversions. There are objections raised by the community. Not
everything was sufficiently addressed. You cannot just claim that they are
invalid objections and rush the proposal to last call just because you see
they are invalid reasons. Also the debate between valid-invalid objections
and whether your "constructs are the same with my own constructs" is
clearly constructivism in nature - we won't have a resolution to that
because everyone can claim "they are your views, not mine".

Put the community at the center, listen to what they have to say, then
respect the decision.

Gaby


On Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 11:29 PM Lamiaa Chnayti <lamiaachnayti at gmail.com>
wrote:


> Hi Jordi,

>

> I am very disappointed with what you are doing. There are a vast amount of

> significant objections that clearly state this policy is a no-go.

>

> And it is not only a no-go here, but you have also been clearly told so in

> RIPE as well for the same policy. Why are you not questioning the decision

> of the RIPE working group on the same policy and with very similar major

> objections?

>

> A simple google would find you the following results (

> https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/2020-May/013189.html),

> and they are all coming from veterans of the RIPE community:

>

> “Members who "care" will probably deal with issues and those who don't

> care won't start caring, so I'm struggling to see what value this brings”

>

>  Mr Michele Neylon

>  Blacknight Solutions

>

>

> “Why does this need to be a policy?  This is an operational implementation

> thing, not a strategic direction issue.”

>

> Nick Hilliard

>

>

> “I’m even more confused and struggling to understand how this is relevant

> to the AP WG. Could you please explain?

>

> First of all, this dashboard thing is an operational service matter.

> Please clarify why you think it needs to be a policy issue.

>

> Next, if you wanted to know if the NCC is considering this dashboard idea,

> you could simply have asked them. Or raised the matter in the NCC Services

> WG. Have you done either of those things? If so, what was the response?”

>

> Jim Reid

>

> Just to quote a few.

>

> People have been repeatedly telling you multiple times: this is not a good

> policy, and you counter-arguing with the chair and saying you have

> addressed those concerns is not really a way to work constructively.

>

> Regards,

>

> Lamiaa

>

>

>

>

> Le mer. 30 sept. 2020 à 16:05, Fernando Frediani <fhfrediani at gmail.com> a

> écrit :

>

>> Hello Chloe, would you support the same reasoning for the Resource

>> Transfer Policy as well ?

>>

>> Regards

>> Fernando

>> On 30/09/2020 11:53, Chloe Kung wrote:

>>

>> Hi Jaco,

>>

>>

>>

>> I don’t see why you cannot find valid objections and hence think this

>> proposal should be in the last call. I agree with Gaby. The fact that many

>> of us are still discussing the matter and object the proposal in all

>> different reasons, is the prove of there is no reaching rough consensus.

>> And so we should not rush it into last call just because some think it’s

>> doing good or all problems have been taken care of.

>>

>>

>>

>> Like for objection d; no proper definition of the term Abuse, there is

>> still a need to address on it. Yes the proposal is about “building” abuse

>> contact, but just like what Jordi has said, “ The policy only needs to

>> state what the staff should evaluate and thus, what members should do”, if

>> the definition of the word/ act of Abuse is not clear, how can the staff

>> evaluate such action then? Let's say if they interpret those cases in their

>> own different ways, it will not be fair to any of the parties nor would it

>> be something we want I suppose. And there are high chance of having

>> mis-interpretation too!

>>

>>

>>

>> Best,

>>

>> Chloe

>>

>> _______________________________________________

>> RPD mailing listRPD at afrinic.nethttps://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd

>>

>> _______________________________________________

>> RPD mailing list

>> RPD at afrinic.net

>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd

>>

> _______________________________________________

> RPD mailing list

> RPD at afrinic.net

> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd

>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20200930/d8cc0ca8/attachment.html>