This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/[email protected]/
[anti-abuse-wg] 2019-03 New Policy Proposal (BGP Hijacking is a RIPE Policy Violation)
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-03 New Policy Proposal (BGP Hijacking is a RIPE Policy Violation)
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-03 New Policy Proposal (BGP Hijacking is a RIPE Policy Violation)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Brian Nisbet
brian.nisbet at heanet.ie
Wed Mar 20 10:27:28 CET 2019
Jordi, > -----Original Message----- > From: anti-abuse-wg <anti-abuse-wg-bounces at ripe.net> On Behalf Of > I can figure several possible ways to avoid that. > 1) Contractual (not sure if this can be done in a policy) changes to indicate > than in case of a policy violation, the account becomes frozen immediately, > until actions to close the account are completed. > 2) A modification to the transfers policy that indicates that no transfers can > be initiated if the any of the parties are involved in an investigation for policy > violation. > 3) A specific policy about implications of policy violations. > > If instead of that we want explicit text about that in this policy proposal, that > means possibly a way for slowing down the process, which at the time being > it seems to me there is a major agreement of favor of doing something. > Furthermore, having explicit text here means that other policy violations > need to have their own way, and I think we must have a single path for > resolving those issues, not one for each possible policy violation case. > > Does that make sense ? > > Can we agree that it will be better to have this discussion in a separate > thread/policy proposal, in order to avoid this to be a show-stopper for this > policy proposal? > > Would the chairs allow that thread in this list or suggest an alternative WG for > a possible policy proposal? Good question, but I think that any policy dealing with changing how the NCC should react to policy violations will be... complex. I also don't think AA-WG is the right place for such a general policy. So if you, as the author, don't wish to insert it into your policy (and I can understand your reasoning fully), then I think a separate policy, likely pointed towards somewhere like NCC Services would be more apt. I would caution that such things are likely to have a large interaction with/involvement of the NCC Membership, where such discussions have been very divided in the past. I think you and many other people are aware of this, but I just wanted to flag it. Brian Co-Chair, RIPE AA-WG Brian Nisbet Service Operations Manager HEAnet CLG, Ireland's National Education and Research Network 1st Floor, 5 George's Dock, IFSC, Dublin D01 X8N7, Ireland +35316609040 brian.nisbet at heanet.ie www.heanet.ie Registered in Ireland, No. 275301. CRA No. 20036270
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-03 New Policy Proposal (BGP Hijacking is a RIPE Policy Violation)
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-03 New Policy Proposal (BGP Hijacking is a RIPE Policy Violation)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]