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

In message <20190320222915.GT99066 at cilantro.c4inet.net>, 
"Sascha Luck [ml]" <aawg at c4inet.net> wrote:

>On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 02:26:28PM -0700, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
>
>>countinue to make, the exact same mistake that Mr.  Luck has made here,
>>i.e. failing to note the clear distinction between things that are
>>"political" and things that are abjectly and abundantly criminal,
>
>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.

I anticipated that this question/issue might come up, so I did a small bit
of backgound research in anticipation.  I understand tnat the material
I quote here may be deemed insufficient to fully or adequately answer the
question, but quite certainly there is a wealth of other and relevant
reference material available online, and I will be more than happy to
provide further references, as required, in addition to those noted below,
even though this isn't really my field.

    The biblical narrative of the revelation at Sinai begins in Exodus 19
    after the arrival of the children of Israel at Mount Sinai (also called
    Horeb). On the morning of the third day of their encampment, "there
    were thunders and lightnings, and a thick cloud upon the mount, and
    the voice of the trumpet exceeding loud", and the people assembled
    at the base of the mount. After "the LORD[37] came down upon mount
    Sinai", Moses went up briefly and returned and prepared the people,
    and then in Exodus 20 "God spoke" to all the people the words of the
    covenant, that is, the "ten commandments" as it is written. Moder
    biblical scholarship differs as to whether Exodus 19-20 describes
    the people of Israel as having directly heard all or some of the
    decalogue, or whether the laws are only passed to them through Moses.

Refs:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_Commandments

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thou_shalt_not_steal

>>The one important difference, of course, is that 2019-03 calls for the
>>hijackers to be deprived not only of whatever they have stolen, but also
>>and additionally, of every number resource that they were ever legitimately
>>granted, after a due process.  
>
>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.

Well, I was misinformed then.  My bad.

>>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. 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.

That's a very interesting contention.

All I can see is that if these are indeed the rules then my eyes must havd
deceived me when I thought that I saw WHOIS records for various IP blocks
from each of the RIPE, ARIN, and Afrinic regions, all of which seemed to
me at the time to have been assigned to various legal entities, all of
which were themselves purportedly located in Seychelles Islands.


Regards,
rfg