[rpd] Decisions ... Abuse contact

[Ekaterina Kalugina]

Hey all,

Let us take a step back and look at the facts.

The abuse contact policy have received multiple unaddressed objections.
Even if we all agreed that abuse-c has to be mandatory, the policy still
has to be functional and therefore address issues such as non-compliance
and enforcement. Until this is done, the consensus will not be reached.

Dismissing objections as "invalid" and attacking the decisions of the
co-chairs is not a way to go. In fact, this is the way to undermine the
legitimacy of the entire PDP and thus threaten the integrity of all the
work that had been done here.

Yes, it is a shame that the policy would need to be dragged for longer, but
this is not as crucial as the Resource Transfer Policy for the future of
AFRINIC. Therefore, I fail to see how this argument is in any way relevant.

Finally, Jordi, I cannot even begin to understand how much time and effort
you put into this policy. But whether the policy is being implemented or
not is up to the community, and the community did not reach consensus.
Trying to undermine this decision is not playing fair. There are other
authors whose policies got rejected and they accepted the community's
decision with grace and understanding. I can only respectfully ask you to
do the same and try your luck again next time.

Warmest wishes,

Ekaterina


On Wed, 30 Sep 2020, 17:51 Jaco Kroon <jaco at uls.co.za> wrote:


> Hi Lamiaa,

>

> The link and all related quotes below relates to a dashboard policy.

>

> To the best of my knowledge this policy isn't being pushed, we're pushing

> the abuse contact policy, which has now been officially dragging 2 years,

> the longest open proposal without resolution.  The dashboard is a different

> proposal, and I would welcome such a dashboard, whether or not it should be

> a matter of policy is a different discussion.

>

> Kind Regards,

> Jaco

> On 2020/09/30 17:26, Lamiaa Chnayti 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 listRPD at afrinic.nethttps://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/20200930/0ea04359/attachment-0001.html>