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

In message <20190405121330.GY99066 at cilantro.c4inet.net>, 
Sascha Luck [ml]" <aawg at c4inet.net> wrote:

>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.

I cannot speak to every historical posting that might have ever been made
to the AAWG mailing list. I can only say that, for my part, I personally
have no recollection of having ever spoken in favor of the proposition
that RIPE should get into the content regulation business.  Nor do I have
any personal recollection of anyone else having ever done so, either here
or anywhere else.

That having been said, I understand that you have a reasonable concern that,
at some future point, RIPE may be motivated or enticed into attempting to
regulate some specific forms of content.  If and when that day ever comes,
I will be standing right beside you, denouncing and objecting to any such
attempts to make RIPE into the Content Police.  But that day is not today,
and that is clearly not what 2019-03 does.

>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.

This is, again, the "slippery slope" argument, i.e. the notion that once
RIPE has at least -one- "behavioral" rule, many others, including many that
may have nothing at all to do with RIPE's fundamental goals, will inevitably
follow.

I have already addressed this "slippery slope" argument.  I think that the
fear, while reasonable, is overblown, and that as long as RIPE remains
exclusively concerned with issues relating directly and only to the orderly
management of the address space this fear is misplaced.  Nobody has asked,
and nobody is at all likely to ask RIPE to address the issue of childhood
truancy, or any of a million other social ills that clearly have nothing at
all to do with Internet number resources.

To repeat, I and others see there as being a bright line that can easily be
used to clearly distinguish betwen abuse "on" the Internet and abuse "of"
the Internet.  Hijacking is clearly in the latter category.

>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.

I actually would agree with that last part, i.e. the part about having -only-
the dues-paying members decide.  I confess that I know virtually nothing
about the mechanics of how this whole process is supposed to work, but it
has been my assumption throughout that, yes, in fact, a proposal such as
this -would- ultimately have to be approved by the dues-paying membership,
acting as a whole body.  Are you asserting that a new rule such as 2019-03
could be adopted WITHOUT the consent of the dues-paying members, acting as
a whole?  If so, that's news to me! 

I confess that I may have been incorrectly assuming that this proposal
would be -reviewed- by the AAWG, and that at the end of this process, the
-recommendation- of the AAWG would be passed on for final ratification to
whatever body represents the whole of the dues-paying members... sort of
like a U.S. congressional subcommittee can simply -recommend- something,
after which it goes to the full committee, and then if -they- approve it,
then it finally gets voted on by the whole body (either the Senate or the
House of Representatives).  If that's not the way this actually works in
the case of the RIPE AAWG, then I ask for either you or the chair to educate
me about the mechanics of the actual adoption proccess for RIPE proposals
(such as 2019-03) because it sounds like you are saying that -just- the
AAWG can act on its own and thus bind the whole of RIPE to some course of
action.  If that's true, then it certainly would be unfair and un-democratic.

>As for comparing RIPE NCC with Twitter, that 'argument, is so
>blatantly ridiculous that I don't think it even deserves a
>response.

I fail to see how the comparison/analogy is ridiculous.  Both entities have
memberships and members.  Both provide some kind of service to those members.
In both cases, the entities could each arguably be called "monopoly
providers" of their respective services.  Seems like a good analogy to me!

The only real (and striking) difference seems to be that, as I pointed out,
one of these organizations has an actual AUP and the other doesn't have any
at all.

But perhaps that is exactly what you meant to say, i.e. that any comparison
between, say, Twitter and RIPE is "ridiculous" because Twitter, at least,
is realistic in its minimal "light touch" regulation which is designed and
intended to prevent utter chaos.


Regards,
rfg