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

Hi,


On Mon, 1 Apr 2019, Sascha Luck [ml] wrote:

> On Mon, Apr 01, 2019 at 05:06:37PM +0100, Carlos Friaas via anti-abuse-wg 
> wrote:
>> The same way it happens with lack of payment,
>
> explicitly part of the contract (SSA).
>
>> or delivering false/forged information to the NCC.
>
> explicitly part of the contract.
>
> You are trying to change the contract. You can't do that here.

"The Member acknowledges applicability of, and adheres to, the RIPE 
Policies and RIPE NCC procedural documents" -- you know... those that 
could change with time...?



>>> with, i.e. punishment by withdrawal of resources.
>> 
>> It shouldn't be their decision, it should be the experts' decision.
>
> It gets better. By *what* authority does your expert get to
> decide that a LIR should be punished? Deo gratias? It can't be a contractual 
> obligation, I have no damn contract
> with some expert...

"RIPE Policies" -- you are trying to discuss if a given policy is 
admissible even during the initial discussion phase...



>> It's possibly my fault, but (in this long thread) i still fail to read from 
>> someone that hijacking is not offensive, and thus it should be tolerated by 
>> the community. I understand you are trying to take this into a grey area by 
>> comparison with other examples/abuse.
>
> It is quite possible to find "hijacking" offensive and yet to
> oppose a dangerous and totalitarian policy.

Dangerous to who exactly?

Totalitarian? It's not one person which would be ruling directly over any 
consequence.

Perhaps with version 2.0 (if you care to read it) you will be able to 
calculate the minimum number of people involved until a LIR closure 
actually becomes possible.


Regards,
Carlos


> rgds,
> SL
>