[rpd] Decisions ... Abuse contact

[Arnaud AMELINA]

Salut Patrick ,

Patrick, permets-moi ici de saluer ta sagesse, ton calme et ton esprit
d'andragogie. Peut être pour ceux qui ne le connaissent pas Patrick est
l'un des plus anciens formateurs AFNOG et gestionnaire du NOC au cours de
toutes les dernières sessions d'AIS auxquelles certains parmi vous auraient
assisté en presentiel. Donc il parle d'un sujet qu'il maîtrise
parfaitement.

Merci

Hi Patrick,


 Patrick, allow me here to salute your wisdom, your calm and your spirit of
andragogy.  Maybe for those who don't know him Patrick is one of the oldest
AFNOG trainers and manager of the NOC during all the last sessions of AIS
which some of you would have attended face to face.  So he is talking about
a subject that he masters perfectly.


 Thanks

Arnaud

Le dim. 4 oct. 2020 à 04:44, Patrick Okui <pokui at psg.com> a écrit :


> 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):

>

>    1.

>

>    mandatory abuse-c is needed in whois.

>    2.

>

>    validation of the abuse-c is needed.

>    3.

>

>    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> 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 )

>>

>> 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

>>

>> *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> 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 ?

>>> 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> 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 ?

>>>> 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> 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

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>> 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

>>>>>

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

>>>>>

>>>>> --

>>>> Lamiaa CHNAYTI

>>>>

>>>>

>>>>

>>>>

>>>>

>>>>

>>>>

>>>> --

>>>>

>>>>

>>>> patrick

>>>>

>>>>

>>>>

>>>>

>>>>

>>>>

>>>>

>>>>

>>>>

>>>>

>>>> --

>>> Lamiaa CHNAYTI

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>> --

>>>

>>>

>>> patrick

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>> --

>> Lamiaa CHNAYTI

>>

>> --

>> patrick

>> _______________________________________________

>> RPD mailing list

>> RPD at afrinic.net

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

>>

> --

> patrick

> _______________________________________________

> RPD mailing list

> RPD at afrinic.net

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

>

>

> --

> patrick

> _______________________________________________

> 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/20201004/f9aff1dd/attachment-0001.html>