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

On Tue, 19 Mar 2019, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:

+1.

-Hank

>
> In message <E1h6E3W-00051F-BF at www-apps-1.ripe.net>,
> Marco Schmidt <mschmidt at ripe.net> wrote:
>
>> You can find the full proposal at:
>> https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2019-03
>
> Anyway who knows the first thing about me will know that I'm
> strongly in favor of the general thrust of this proposal,
> generally speaking.  In fact I would only want to quibble
> with a few of the finer points of the implementation details.
>
> With respect to those, I'd like to see there be a bit more
> formality (in the specification of the adhjudication procedures),
> and a bit less (mandated) fooling around before any particular
> "deliberate" hijacker can be formally and finally kicked to
> the curb.
>
> I have a lot of thoughts about how all this could be and should
> be structured and operated, but I don't want to bring in too
> much of that fine detail at this point in the discussion for
> fear that it might obscure the more fundamental question on the
> table, which is simply whether or not this is a good idea gnerally.
> (I personally think that it is.)  So for now I'll just say that
> I think this proposal is on the Right Track generally, and that
> I think that it can be and should be revised and evolved to make
> all of the adjuducation procedures transparent, faster, and yet
> still unarguably fair to those accused.
>
> Mostly, I personally would like to see the time frames specified
> in the current draft tightened up (i.e. reduced) generally, and
> the entire process streamlined somewhat.  These are not capital
> murder cases we are talking about after all!
>
> Specifically, I think that it should be adequate to have there
> be a period of *no more than* two weeks, during which the case is
> argued, by both the accused and (perhaps) by an NCC staff member
> presenting the case for the prosecution, all in front (via email)
> of a smallish set of adjuducators (perhaps five, chosen by random
> lots) after which there should be a period of *no more than* one
> week of deliberation, and then a final judgement and report.  And
> lastly, after that, I think that it would be more than sufficient
> if there were only one avenue of appeal, which would be to the
> RIPE Board, which would be required to decide any appeal within
> *no more than* four weeks.
>
> In practice, I think that even these time frames will, in the end,
> be seen to have been excessively and pointlessly generous in virtually
> all actual cases.  I am thinking back on all of the cases I have seen
> of deliberate hijacks, and there have been many of those.  None of
> those cases was really very ambiguous at all, and none of them would
> have required more than a day or two, once all of the facts were
> gathered, to persuade any reasonable and knowledgable observer of
> the truth of what had happened and/or its clearly deliberate nature.
> Nor would any of those who had been caught red handed pulling this
> kind of nonsense ever be at all likely to appeal from the obvious
> facts.  But due proces is never something to be dispensed with lightly,
> and we should not do so in this instance.  Thus, I agree that it *is*
> necessary to have a formal and fair process, including a right of
> appeal.  I just hope that it can be moved along at a rather more
> rapid pace (even in the worst case) than what the proposal at hand
> is currently calling for.
>
>
> Regards,
> rfg
>