[rpd] Decisions ... Abuse contact

[JORDI PALET MARTINEZ]

Hi Ekaterina,

 

The problem lies in that what for you has not been addressed, for me it has been addressed. I’ve explained over and over, and not just me, other community folks, that I don’t even know in person, or exchanged emails with them.

 

The objections need to be made in a rational way, if anyone (from the community, not just the authors) address them, they don’t remain. “I don’t like this” is not a valid objection. “This is not good even if it is the actual situation in other policies” is not a valid objection, unless we decide to change it for all them. So, if nothing about GDPR is a problem for the whois, then why this proposal creates a problem? Not to start discussing that the GDPR was a point brought by the chairs in their “duty” not by a community member. Not to forget that I’ve already explained that in the meeting and in the list previously, and the staff has confirmed that.

 

Is like the previous suggestions that there is a need to define “abuse” and then after the discussion the folks that were supporting that (if I recall correctly), have changed their mind on that point. So clearly it was invalid since the beginning, but some people were not understanding correctly the policy. And this is why what we are missing in this community is having *up front discussions* not just the week before the PPM because then is too late to have sufficient time to explain what is being misunderstood (or even to make changes, editorial or other clarifications, etc., of course).

 

That’s why I suggested long time ago, and it was done at some point, to organize webinars to explain proposals way ahead to the meeting. And note that many of my comments here are not anymore related to any specific proposal, but in general to the way we cooperate and how we should improve it.

 

Regarding my time, it is easy to understand. If I start something never mind if personal or for the community, I try my best and invest whatever time is needed: *otherwise doesn’t make sense to start things and then be lazy on them*. I’m not the kind of guy that give up if I believe something is right to pursue, that useless for me and for the community. I’ve even succeded to fight in courts against my country goverment, because *it was the right thing to do*. Of course, I give up if it is proven that I was wrong and there is not an alternative way to set the thing right. Other people prefer to drink, go to discos, sleep, or whatever. I prefer to invest my time in what it is useful for all.

 

Myself got rejected proposals many times, but the rejection was correctly done, and then I didn’t appeal them. Instead I made a new version and sometimes succeded to get the consensus, some times withdrawn it, etc. But giving up because objections which are not rational because don’t follow the PDP, the baylaws or the RSA, and consequently are missjudged for the consensus determination, doesn’t sound like a resonable think to do.

 

Just to give you some stats, I’ve presented I think that already more than 100 proposals among the 5 RIRs (actually I counted those because somebody from AFRINIC made me the question about 2-3 years ago). I only appealed 3 times (including this one) and believe me I was about to appeal a couple of other times but the consensus determination was in the border, so in that case, I’m happy with the chairs decision. And if I count the number of versions of each of those 100 proposals, probably it will count an average of 3-4, so it is about 400 “draft proposals” in total. I think this shows that if I appeal, is really because I think was a wrong determination. I was *about* to appeal this proposal in Luanda, and I decided to keep working on it because I understdood there may be lines dificult to draw with new chairs, which have no experience on determining consensus.

 

Further to that, I’ve probably presented, also (including different versions) about other 400 or 500 documents in IETF, I never counted those. I never needed to do an appeal, probably because there we have a “more well-known consensus culture”.

 

The PDP has an appeal process for a good reason. The chairs, as everyone, can make mistakes. The community may have the feeling that 50 voices against are good enough to drag down a proposal, but that’s not consensus. It should be measured in terms of what is valid and what is an invalid-objection. You can use different words, but it is about something justified with arguments vs non-justified, up to you what you prefer to use.

 

Regards,

Jordi

@jordipalet

 

 

 

El 30/9/20 18:14, "Ekaterina Kalugina" <kay.k.prof at gmail.com> escribió:

 

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 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



_______________________________________________
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

_______________________________________________ RPD mailing list RPD at afrinic.net https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd 



**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
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.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20200930/454eaa8a/attachment-0001.html>