[anti-abuse-wg] On +1s and Policy Awareness AND Astro... something...

On Fri, Apr 05, 2019 at 06:07:48PM +0530, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
>Right. You don't agree with it. So "we all" don't agree with it.  Excellent reasoning there.

I *do* agree that the NCC should not get involved in routing or
content matters. I dispute the statement that *everyone* agrees
with that. I apologise if I didn't make this clear enough. I will
endeavour to use even shorter words next time.

rgds,
SL

>
>On 05/04/19, 5:44 PM, "anti-abuse-wg on behalf of Sascha Luck [ml]" <anti-abuse-wg-bounces at ripe.net on behalf of aawg at c4inet.net> wrote:
>
>    On Thu, Apr 04, 2019 at 06:41:52PM -0700, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
>    >RIPE can't tell anyone either what to announce (over BGP) much less what
>    >the individual IP addresses that people do announce are used for, which
>    >could include, and which often *does* include, the distribution of malware
>    >and also innumerable other unsavory and illegal activities.  None of that
>    >is, or rightly should be any of RIPE's concern.  On that I think we all
>    >agree.
>
>    This argument actually deserves a rebuttal.
>
>    1) I'm not convinced "we all agree" on that. At least where
>    content is concerned, that discussion has already been had, in
>    this very place. With much similar arguments. While it ultimately
>    led to nothing, i don't remember any universal agreement.
>
>    2) Why *not*? It is precisely what 2019-03 attempts to do: it
>    empowers the NCC to regulate in an area where it has no mandate
>    (Routing) with the argument that RIPE-"regulated" resources are
>    involved. It follows logically that this extends to any other use
>    of RIPE-"regulated" resources. Including who can advertise what
>    to whom by which means and to which end. All it takes is another
>    bright idea once that door is open.
>
>    >As regards to what RIPE members are paying for, unless I have totally
>    >misunderstood, the members are paying for the -orderly- distribution and
>    >registration of number resources.  Hijacking quite clearly flies in the
>    >face of that desired order, and if left unchecked, results in the very
>    >opposite of order, i.e. chaos.  Such activity therefore cannot be either
>    >condoned nor even tolerated by the dues paying members if they are in
>    >fact to get the very thing that they are paying for, order over chaos.
>
>    The debate as to what function the NCC should have can and should
>    be had. However, not here. This is something that I firmly
>    believe the paying membership AND NOBODY ELSE should decide.
>
>    As for comparing RIPE NCC with Twitter, that 'argument, is so
>    blatantly ridiculous that I don't think it even deserves a
>    response.
>
>    rgds,
>    SL
>
>
>
>