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

On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 11:04:53PM +0000, Carlos Friaas wrote:
>>I don't think that word means what you think it does. "criminal"
>>has a very precise legal meaning. If you think that advertisement
>>of numbers is a criminal act, please provide jurisdiction, act
>>and article under which it is.
>
>Three words: "dutch", "court", "order" -- that's jurisdiction over 
>RIPE NCC.

To amplify: my comment centers on the use of the term "criminal"
for someone who commits
$something_i_don't_like_but_isn't_actually_illegal.

Somewhat dangerous terrain in Europe because slander, ironically,
*is* a criminal offence in some jurisdictions. I should propbably
excuse Ronald because to a, first-amendment-protected, American
the concept must seem ludicrous. Although I hear Trump wants to
change that...

sncr,
SL
>
>
>(...)
>>You must have read a different verion of this proposal than what
>>I have read. The proposal calls for a "finding" to be made and a
>>report submitted. Any consequences are not even within the
>>mandate of RIPE policy.
>
>And ratified (you may have missed that bit!)
>
>I also don't see any immediate or automatic consequence(s).
>
>However, if the policy was indeed violated, then the door is open for 
>subsequent action(s) -- which can take its due time as already 
>established. This proposal doesn't even try to touch that, and i hope 
>this is completely clear by now.
>
>
>
>>>I would just like it noted, for the record, that RIPE is actually not a
>>>"monopoly provider", and that the four other RIRs might reasonably take
>>>umbrage at the very suggestion.
>>
>>And, like so often, you are wrong here too.
>
>Allow me to disagree (again).
>
>
>>Each RIR is a monopoly provider for its own service region. Some 
>>RIRs even mandate that the resources they allocate and assign must 
>>not be
>>used outside their service region.
>
>Have you heard about legacy resources? Do you know they can be subject 
>to transfers?
>
>Additionally, please note you wrote "Some RIRs", not "All RIRs" :-)
>
>Question: if that mandate is not comploed, is it enough for the NCC to 
>terminate the SSA?
>
>
>Regards,
>Carlos
>
>
>>rgds,
>>Sascha Luck
>>