This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/[email protected]/
[address-policy-wg] layer 10+ issues with 2008-08
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2008-08 (Initial Certification Policy in the RIPE NCC Service Region) going to Last Call
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] layer 10+ issues with 2008-08
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Jim Reid
jim at rfc1035.com
Mon May 9 12:05:31 CEST 2011
On 8 May 2011, at 12:28, Rob Evans wrote: > If "law enforcement" mandates the NCC to withdraw an allocation, > could it also not mandate that the NCC originates a competing route > with a valid ROA that will "trump" the now-invalid ROA? Is this > necessarily a problem? By the time it gets to that stage won't the > legal system have performed sufficient due process that it believes > this is the right way to go? Rob, I think this is an interesting but probably irrelevant question. The NCC would almost definitely be in contempt of court -- ie jail time for Axel and the Board -- if it issued some kind of alternate certificate after being given a court order to revoke one. However since Sander said the lawyer says there's no way the Dutch courts could issue such a court order, this seems to be unrealistic unless there's new legislation. Though I wonder about the EU dimension here. Perhaps a court order in one EU state can be enforced in another along the lines of the European Arrest Warrant? I'm thinking here about forum shopping, eg something comparable to starting libel actions in the very accommodating English courts because of the stupid laws they have. > I value Malcolm's opinion greatly, and when he is this concerned > about a proposal it scares me, it scares me a lot Same here. Since none of us here are lawyers (thankfully), I think the next stage will be to get relevant legal advice and have it published on the list. Perhaps the WG could help to compose the questions or scenarios for the lawyer to consider. In light of Malcolm's comments, we should go carefully here. The PDP allows for an impact assessment. The current state of this proposal is why it's there. I would hope too that the NCC Board formally approves implementation of this policy if/ when we reach that point. I am not worried about the RPKI being used as a vector for takedown requests by law enforcement or others. I am worried about more informal situations. What does the NCC do when the cops knock on the door and say "We don't have a court order and *really* want you to revoke this cert. Please co-operate."? And although I mentioned law enforcement, there may well be others who would wish to push those boundaries.
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2008-08 (Initial Certification Policy in the RIPE NCC Service Region) going to Last Call
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] layer 10+ issues with 2008-08
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]