[anti-abuse-wg] 2019-03 New Policy Proposal (BGP Hijacking is a RIPE Policy Violation)

In message <20190401115412.GC97529 at Space.Net>, 
Gert Doering <gert at space.net> wrote:

>So, your local supermarket is also not allowed to sell anything to
>a convicted criminal?

That analogy is a poor one.  It would however be accurate to say that
my local GUN STORE is not allowed to sell firearms to a convicted
criminal.

And that's clearly a much better analogy, because in the case of this
massive "ad fraud" scheme that was carried out by the group known as
3ve, they were using IP addresses as weapons in their scheme.  Should
RIPE be selling them more?  Apparently, as of right now, there is no
rule in place to prevent this.  And as I have already noted, the
company known as Universal IP Solution Corp. is still a member in
good standing of the RIPE association.

If you are arguing that that is in any sense justifiable, either
morally, ethically, or even legally, please say so explicitly.

Meanwhile, as I have tried to express, all of the armchair legal
scholars on this mailing list who have postulated that RIPE would
somehow be in legal jepordy if it merely ternminates a contract
in accordance with the explicit terms of that contract should take
a moment to google for the term "vicarious liability".

In my country, there is now at least one lawsuit, progressing through
the courts, against gun manufacturers for their supportive role in
some of our recent mass shootings.  I hope that it does not take a
similar legal action against RIPE before RIPE adopts some rational
policies to prevent itself from being the handmadien of online
cyber-criminal enterprises and from then being reasonably and properly
held to legal account for this exact supportive role on ongoing
cyber-crime schemes.


Regards,
rfg