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

Hi Sascha,

El 20/3/19 16:09, "Sascha Luck [ml]" <aawg at c4inet.net> escribió:

    Hi Jordi,
    
    On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 03:45:24PM +0100, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via anti-abuse-wg wrote:
    >    Service Agreement. This I consider harmful to the standing of
    >    the RIPE NCC as an impartial, non-political resource registry.
    >
    >This has been one of our main concerns while developing the text, and this is why we decided to find the right wording that ensures that is up to external experts, not the NCC.
    
    Fallacious. The fact that some expert provides a finding does not
    change that it is the NCC that is tasked with "doing something
    about it".

The fact that the bank confirms that a member doesn't pay the invoice, doesn't mean the NCC  is the "police" they are just following the members/community orders, which is the task they are mandated to.
    
    >    1. The procedures for policy violations in the RIPE NCC are
    >    restorative rather than retributive. If the NCC determines that a
    >    policy violation has occurred, the "offender" is given an
    >    opportunity to rectify the situation, if they do so the case is
    >    closed. Only if the "offender" refuses to cooperate or is not
    >    contactable is any further action taken.
    >
    >I think this can be reconducted in other instances (NCC Services, membership agreement, etc.), in order to ensure that you're waived from the first violation, but not in subsequent ones.
    
    FWIW, I would prefer this entire discussion to take place in
    ncc-services. The entire effect of this proposal pivots on using
    the NCC SSA to achieve some goal and I consider having part of
    this debate in aawg and another part in ncc-services a not very
    subtle divide-and-conquer approach.

I agree for the "actions" but not the policy proposal itself. Otherwise, ANY policy proposal will end up in the same WG, and then we don't need any other WG.
    
    >I'm not sure if he membership will really will not accept a change as the "1st waiver, not 2nd one" that I introduced above. Why membership will support even if is a 10% (just to put an exaggerated figure here) of membership acting against all the community, which means extra cost for all (including the members but not only)?
    
    I would hope that the Membership would be able to see that a
    change in nature of the NCC frm (restorative) registry to
    (retributive) enforcment agency would be fundamental and very 
    dangerous and would *inevitably* fall back on themselves. But 
    that is for the membership to decide.
    
    rgds,
    Sascha Luck
    



**********************************************
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.