[address-policy-wg] layer 10+ issues with 2008-08

Hi Jim, 

> 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.

That isn't the case under Dutch law.  The certificate isn't a seizable asset
... or something law-enforcement could force to revoke. 

Ask anyone who was involved in the actual process from within RIPE NCC, that
they have done the legal checks and the feedback from the lawyers in a
really THICK document was that what you are second guessing here isn't an
issue. It simply can't be revoked by 'law enforcement' ... 
  
> > 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.

I have great respect for others their opinion, having said that I make my
own decisions on what would actually scare me. In this case, all the 'scary'
questions have already been answered in the past, the legal part was already
looked at. 
 
> 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 you should have a look in the archive. This has already been done
the first time those questions came up. 
And all questions have been answered. 

> 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. 

Again, I'm repeating myself here .. That was already done.

> 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.

That is a good one :) 
That one really made me smile. As a Dutch LIR we get questions like this,
but come on, get real. 

Kind requests like these get waived at the reception, even before someone
would look at it.

I'm sure someone from RIPE NCC could provide a summary of their policy in
requests like that. 

Erik Bais