[rpd] Decisions ... Abuse contact

[Patrick Okui]

Dear Elvis,

I apologise that it seems a very basic step but for any consensus to be 
achieved or alternatively for people to definitely agree to disagree 
there has to be a meeting of minds (or agreement to disagree) on simple 
underlying principles. In this case, three basic issues for a start 
surrounding abuse-c.

Thanks for confirming your viewpoint. I’ll await to see if other 
people have other viewpoints.

As per asking for clarity on Lamiaa’s specific view on the proposed 
8.5 wording, it is equally important, for a different reason that I will 
try to explain.

If you make a statement and I disagree with you, I need to display 
objectivity by explaining *why* I disagree with you. If we ask staff to 
step in with their view, we also need to refer to it in our discussions. 
I believe you and Jordi were using the term “constructivism” in 
another thread. If someone else comes along and disagrees with the both 
of us they’d owe both us and the community the courtesy of responding 
to our specific points. This is because neither the authors, staff, nor 
bystanders can respond to subjective statements.

It is in this spirit that for the RPKI thread I took time to try and 
explain points that some members kept bringing up and others kept saying 
were irrelevant or out-of-scope. Deadlocks where people keep pointing 
fingers at each other saying the others are plain wrong do not help 
anybody and degrade the quality of the discussions.

The desired outcomes would include an author changing text on an item or 
possibly withdrawing a proposal or that a misunderstanding is cleared 
up.

It is however possible for two fundamentally opposing views to both be 
right. At that point the discussion can be shelved for a later date when 
possibly circumstances swing consensus in one direction or another. This 
is the agreement to disagree.

On 4 Oct 2020, at 7:09 EAT, Ibeanusi Elvis wrote:


> Dear Patrick, dear community;

>

> I believe that if you check the thread of emails chronologically, you 

> will clearly understand Lamiaa’s viewpoints and perspective when it 

> comes to this issue of abuse contact policy. No need for her to 

> continuously say or outline her point in every email. Additionally, 

> this same viewpoint is shared by myself, Lucilla and Lamiaa which I 

> strongly support.

>

> Thanks.

> Elvis.

>> On Oct 4, 2020, at 11:55, Patrick Okui <pokui at psg.com> wrote:

>>

>> Dear Lucilla, all,

>>

>> Actually it is very useful for someone to clarify exactly what 

>> statement they are referring to and why they agree or disagree with 

>> existing statements around that issue. Without that, it’s 

>> impossible to understand each other’s viewpoints. I’ll await her 

>> clarity on if I’m understanding her issue with the proposed 8.5

>>

>> However from what the two of you are saying (plus your comments on 

>> another thread supporting a larger change deleting an entire section 

>> which I’ve read) can we agree on the following statements about 

>> abuse contact handling (with or without this policy):

>>

>> mandatory abuse-c is needed in whois.

>>

>> validation of the abuse-c is needed.

>>

>> failure to comply would be treated as normal violation of RSA.

>>

>> Please correct me if I’m wrong on this. It would also be helpful if 

>> anyone who disagrees with these three basic statements speaks up with 

>> their reasons why.

>>

>> On 4 Oct 2020, at 5:33 EAT, lucilla fornaro wrote:

>>

>> dear Patrick, dear all,

>>

>> I think Lamiaa has been very clear about what concerns her position, 

>> that nothing has to do with false accusations against AFRINIC staff.

>>

>> It is pacific to agree that most of us believe that we should have a 

>> mandatory abuse contact. Just like Lamiaa, I believe that one of the 

>> main issues here is that because maintaining database accuracy is an 

>> operational problem, it should be left to the staff to decide how to 

>> validate the contact info in the whois database.

>> As I wrote in other emails, amending the section 7.5.1 to include the 

>> mandatory abuse-c as part of whois registration would be a better 

>> option.

>>

>> regards,

>>

>> Lucilla

>>

>> Il giorno dom 4 ott 2020 alle ore 04:13 Patrick Okui <pokui at psg.com 

>> <mailto:pokui at psg.com>> ha scritto:

>> Hi Lamiaa,

>>

>> Actually you did not explain your position. It helps to be precise 

>> with what you mean.

>>

>> You simply said:

>>

>> “Check accuracy of database data is part of afrinic operational 

>> routing and has no need to be put in the policy. We don’t micro 

>> manage afrinic.”

>>

>> So I simply asked you to clarify if you imagined AFRINIC could simply 

>> make abuse-c mandatory without our say so or if they weren’t facing 

>> issues with the existing optional abuse-c.

>>

>> Note that admin-c has a restriction that does not apply to any other 

>> contact. The requirement that the contact be resident in the AS. The 

>> exact roles of the different contacts is why they can have different 

>> restrictions.

>>

>> So to be clear from your email, you agree that AFRINIC’s issue is 

>> legitimate and they need to be able to require members have mandatory 

>> abuse-c. It is not obvious that a mandatory contact is needed. This 

>> point is listed by the co-chairs as one of the outstanding issues. 

>> (point e. under the policy at 

>> https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2020/011372.html 

>> <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2020/011372.html> )

>>

>> If I understand you (correct me where I’m wrong), what you take 

>> issue with (in this particular email thread) is 8.5. Specifically:

>>

>> 8.5 Validation of "abuse-c"/"abuse-mailbox”

>>

>> AFRINIC will validate compliance with the items above, both when the 

>> "abuse-c" and/or "abuse-mailbox" attributes are created or updated, 

>> as well as periodically, not less than once every 6 months, and 

>> whenever AFRINIC sees fit.

>>

>> Note that this is to address issues raised by some other people. Not 

>> to pick on Chloe but as a recent example she commented as recorded at 

>> https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2020/011590.html 

>> <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2020/011590.html>

>> nor does it guarantee the abuse email will be checked on a routine 

>> basis. Then I think it will only become a meaningless policy.

>>

>> The text proposed by Jordi says AFRINIC can pick the duration and 6 

>> months (1/2 the billing cycle) is suggested as the max time between 

>> validations. In this text, AFRINIC can choose to validate weekly, or 

>> monthly or etc. I think the proposed text is a good compromise you 

>> can suggest a different timing. It just says AFRINIC can verify as 

>> often as they want, but anyone who reads the policy knows that any 

>> contact they retrieve is at most 6 months from its last validation 

>> (or less if AFRINIC decide to do this more often).

>>

>> If this is a heavy point of contention, we can always ask staff to 

>> clarify what they understand from the proposed text and what they 

>> think about the phrasing of timelines. After all, it falls on their 

>> shoulders to implement.

>>

>> On 3 Oct 2020, at 20:30 EAT, Lamiaa Chnayti wrote:

>>

>> Hi Patrick,

>>

>> You are not following any logic here, and it seems like you are a 

>> very confused person on your argument.

>>

>> 1. You claimed that you want to have policy text dictated AFRINIC how 

>> OFTEN they should validate contact in the whois.

>>

>> 2. I am telling you maintaining database accuracy (in which partly 

>> includes validating contact info in the database) is an operational 

>> issue. It should not be put into policy text, and it should be left 

>> to the staff to decide how they want to validate the contact info in 

>> the whois database. That is not only abuse-c, but any other contact 

>> in the DB should be reachable and accurate. We don’t need a policy 

>> for that as that is Afrinic’s mandate and daily routine job.

>>

>> And how did you arrive from the above arguments to claim I was saying 

>> that the staff were lying?

>>

>> Staff claimed they have had an increase in work load due to the lack 

>> of mandatory abuse contact. Nobody is disputing that. Everyone here 

>> agrees we can, and we probably should, have a mandatory abuse 

>> contact. However, we should simply put it together with the other 

>> mandatory contacts. There is no reason making an entire section for a 

>> simple contact information. And when did I say that is a lie?

>>

>> Please, you are making a serious accusation about me without any 

>> ground and potentially you are in breach of the code of conduct.

>>

>> Additionally, I did not send the letter to you in private. I simply 

>> forgot to press respond to all at the bottom which is a completely 

>> forgivable oversight. You are simply making too big of a noise for a 

>> simple mistake.

>>

>> Regards,

>>

>> Lamiaa

>>

>> Le sam. 3 oct. 2020 à 11:45, Patrick Okui <pokui at psg.com 

>> <mailto:pokui at psg.com>> a écrit :

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>> Hi Lamiaa,

>>

>>

>>

>> Great that you cc’ed the list this time.

>>

>>

>>

>> Kindly clarify your position on the following in the email I wrote 

>> and you just responded to..

>>

>>

>>

>> Are you trying to say that the AFRINIC staff is lying to the RPD list 

>> as per https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2020/011534.html 

>> <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2020/011534.html> ? 

>> Particularly point d? If so please respond to Madhvi with further 

>> queries or suggestions.

>>

>>

>>

>> AFRINIC staff only operate within the boundaries of the policies we 

>> make. They can’t randomly make data mandatory that we say is 

>> optional or vice versa.

>>

>>

>>

>> On 3 Oct 2020, at 13:42 EAT, Lamiaa Chnayti wrote:

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>> Hello Patrick,

>>

>> Check accuracy of database data is part of afrinic operational 

>> routing and has no need to be put in the policy. We don’t micro 

>> manage afrinic.

>>

>> Regards,

>>

>> Lamiaa

>>

>> Le sam. 3 oct. 2020 à 11:41, Patrick Okui <pokui at psg.com 

>> <mailto:pokui at psg.com>> a écrit :

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>> Hi Lamiaa,

>>

>>

>>

>> Grateful if you can cc the RPD list on your contributions.

>>

>>

>>

>> Are you trying to say that the AFRINIC staff is lying to the RPD list 

>> as per https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2020/011534.html 

>> <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2020/011534.html> ? 

>> Particularly point d?

>>

>>

>>

>> AFRINIC staff only operate within the boundaries of the policies we 

>> make. They can’t randomly make data mandatory that we say is 

>> optional or vice versa.

>>

>>

>>

>> On 3 Oct 2020, at 13:10 EAT, Lamiaa Chnayti wrote:

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>> Hello Patrick,

>>

>> Check accuracy of database data is part of afrinic operational 

>> routing and has no need to be put in the policy. We don’t micro 

>> manage afrinic.

>>

>> Regards,

>>

>> Lamiaa

>>

>> Le sam. 3 oct. 2020 à 07:49, Patrick Okui <pokui at psg.com 

>> <mailto:pokui at psg.com>> a écrit :

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>> Dear Elvis,

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>> I’ll address just one of your points people keep bringing up.

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>> On 3 Oct 2020, at 1:05 EAT, Ibeanusi Elvis wrote:

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>> Dear Community,

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>> Once more regarding this abuse contact policy or abuse-c, 

>> irrespective of the lack of a clear definition of what constitutes or 

>> entails an abuse, there is no guarantee that the abuse contact mail 

>> box will be routinely checked and the properly defined concept to 

>> determine if an abuse cases is valid and hence, take necessary action 

>> as pointed out by @Chloe.

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>> Are you intentionally not reading the proposal text at 

>> https://www.afrinic.net/policy/proposals/2018-gen-001-d6#proposal 

>> <https://www.afrinic.net/policy/proposals/2018-gen-001-d6#proposal>

>>

>>

>>

>> Specifically:

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>> 8.5 Validation of "abuse-c"/"abuse-mailbox”

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>> AFRINIC will validate compliance with the items above, both when the 

>> "abuse-c" and/or "abuse-mailbox" attributes are created or updated, 

>> as well as periodically, not less than once every 6 months, and 

>> whenever AFRINIC sees fit.

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>> --

>>

>>

>> patrick

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>> _______________________________________________

>>

>> RPD mailing list

>>

>> RPD at afrinic.net <mailto:RPD at afrinic.net>

>>

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

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

>>

>> -- 

>> Lamiaa CHNAYTI

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>> --

>>

>>

>> patrick

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>> -- 

>> Lamiaa CHNAYTI

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>> --

>>

>>

>> patrick

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>> -- 

>> Lamiaa CHNAYTI

>>

>> --

>> patrick

>>

>> _______________________________________________

>> RPD mailing list

>> RPD at afrinic.net <mailto:RPD at afrinic.net>

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

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

>> --

>> patrick

>>

>> _______________________________________________

>> RPD mailing list

>> RPD at afrinic.net

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





--
patrick
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20201004/76f0f1ed/attachment-0001.html>