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

Hi,


On Thu, 18 Apr 2019, Töma Gavrichenkov wrote:

> On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 1:39 AM Carlos Friaças via anti-abuse-wg
> <anti-abuse-wg at ripe.net> wrote:
>> And how will a dutch court determine a wrong decision was made? by getting
>> a different set of experts...?
>
> E.g. by judging on an evidence found later, and with that evidence
> making a decision that original set of experts did their job poorly.

Experts (on any given subject matter) can be wrong, if they look only at a 
specific dataset.

If data is not available on the year a crime was commited, and it surfaces 
only 5 years later, i wouldn't say the experts did a poor job. They might 
have done a good job with the data available at the time.



> NCC has arbiters for quite a while. Who's responsible for their mistakes?

Curiously or not, that's where all of this started: my first take was to 
think that arbiters were the solution, but *several* people pointed out 
the current pool of RIPE arbiters was formed for a different purpose and 
some of them might not have the skills (or the will...) to look into 
hijacking cases.



>> It shouldn't be the RIPE NCC, if the RIPE NCC is just following
>> the defined policy.
>
> Honestly, I think it's the opposite. If the NCC terminates a
> membership agreement, it should be liable for all the consequences of
> a wrong decision no matter how exactly the decision is made and what
> arbiters/experts/oracles/grandmoms were asked for a definitive advice.

OK, but that is relative to *any* termination reason, be it immediate or 
on a specific timescale (see RIPE-716).

I would like to know how many dutch court cases were filed to the date 
against RIPE NCC about wrongful membership agreement termination.


Thanks,
Carlos

ps: we've missed grandmoms on version 2.0's text. sorry about that :-))


> --
> Töma
>