[anti-abuse-wg] Reporting Fraud

Nigel Titley <Nigel.Titley2 at easynet.com> wrote:
> I'd like you to clarify some of the statements you made below:

Happy to!

> 1. "A Working Group cannot propose a policy, a member has to propose
>     a policy."
> I'm not sure where you got this idea. I thought that in the meeting
> you had with Axel, Remco, Rob and myself we made it abundantly clear
> that anyone can propose a policy. You can walk in off the street and
> propose a policy if you want.

I got it from you, and Gert has just explained the thinking better than
I ever could: you told me (and I accept) that whatever is proposed has
to be proposed by *someone*.  A natural person.  To me that implies a
member of a working-group.  But yes, if someone unconnected with RIPE
walked in and proposed a policy I guess it would technically meet the
requirements.  If they weren't a member of a working-group when they
proposed the policy they would very rapidly need to become a member,
otherwise they could not support the case for adoption of the proposal.

> If you call flying you to Amsterdam and setting up a meeting with
> two board members, the MD and the RIPE chair "discouragement",
> I'm not sure what we can do about it.

I outlined at that meeting my concerns; there have certainly been actions
of a discouraging nature by some NCC staff.  I already gave you specific
details within that meeting, and there is a broad convention that issues
relating to actions of employees should not be discussed in public.

So all I am willing to say here is that the tone of feedback *from the
NCC* was unhelpful, and issues raised at that meeting which one might
reasonably expect to have been followed-up by the NCC since that meeting,
have not been.

> 3. "The decision as to where each policy proposal is discussed
>     and agreed, is made by the Working-Group Chairs collective."
> Incorrect.

Again, this does not match the impression I formed on reading the pages
that you kindly pointed me to.  I quote from RIPE Document 470:

"In some cases a proposal may need more than one WG's input.  In such
cases, before the proposal is published, the relevant WG Chairs will
discuss the situation and decide the WG most suited to discussion of
the proposal"

> I would go further and say that no policy has ever even been proposed
> by the AAWG. So why don't you do something about it? The RIPE NCC
> (and I'm sure the other WG chairs, should you need advice) are poised,
> waiting to help you.

I was under the impression that the BCP document (RIPE-409) had the
status of a policy.  If that is not so, then your point is valid.
And it is certainly high time this group DID produce some policy.

However since you are reading this thread, and given your extensive
knowledge of BGP and routing, would you like to comment on the point
that gave rise to it, namely the fraudulent misuse of RIPE resources?

That description of that incident may sound as if it was a one-off.
It's not.  In fact it is part of a pattern that we see almost on a
daily basis.  Always involving RIPE ASNs and IP ranges.  Never ARIN.
Never APNIC.  And not even AFRINIC or LACNIC.

-- 
Richard Cox