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

On Wed, 20 Mar 2019, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via anti-abuse-wg wrote:

> Hi Brian,
>
> I'm fine moving that thread to NCC Services and I know how complex that will be.
>
> So, repeating my question to all the participants here:
>
> Can we agree at least that we should not have text regarding that in the policy proposal under discussion (also considering Brian input)?

+1.

-Hank

>
> I hope everybody understands my insistence on this as the authors need to have a clear community feeling on that for our new version.
>
> Regards,
> Jordi
>
>
> El 20/3/19 10:27, "anti-abuse-wg en nombre de Brian Nisbet" <anti-abuse-wg-bounces at ripe.net en nombre de brian.nisbet at heanet.ie> escribió:
>
>    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
>
>
>
>
> **********************************************
> IPv4 is over
> Are you ready for the new Internet ?
> http://www.theipv6company.com
> The IPv6 Company
>
> This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
>
>
>
>
>