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

On Fri, Mar 22, 2019 at 11:09:24AM +0000, Carlos Friaas via anti-abuse-wg wrote:
>With this self-regulatory framework in place hijackers (and everyone) 
>will have in writing that their actions are not tolerated by the 
>community, and if it comes to that, their 'business model' will be 
>somewhat affected if they need to gather/find new numbers to resume 
>their line of 'business'.

Why would they care? It's the equivalent of a passive-agressive
neighbour sticking a note on your door about your bicycle parked
in the stairwell...

>performs an hijack. About the legacy resource holders, if they violate 
>RIPE policies, i don't see why their access to NCC's Services can't be 
>denied (permanently or temporarily?) -- that's my interpretation, but 

Because, if they haven't explicitly agreed to abide with RIPE
policy and have signed a contract with the NCC to that effect,
they are not subject to RIPE policy and the NCC has no authority
to enforce it against them.


>Anyway, 2019-03 doesn't have the "recovering" of resources back to the 
>NCC as a goal.

Good to have this unequivocally stated in writing.

>>9. "The biggest issue what I see in this policy, is that the RIPE 
>>NCC ( either themselves or the Exec Board. ) is desired / aimed to 
>>pull the trigger on a membership or contractual relationship."
>
>And they could (the Exec Board) decide not to do it, due to the 
>ratification section. But *today*, it's a tool they don't have

And this is in direct contradiction to the statement directly
above. 
>
>If you are uncomfortable with the Exec Board, would the RIPE 
>Chair/Vice-Chair be an acceptable alternative? Or should a different 
>set of people be selected to have control over the ratification knob?

>>10. "These kind of actions or decisions should be kept out of the 
>>RIPE NCC office and the actual case and decision should be made by a 
>>court and court order."
>
>I fully agree the NCC staff should be completely kept out of this 
>process. I'm not entirely sure about the Exec Board, but would easily 
>agree on an independent set of people.


Can I state at this point that the ONLY entity which can claim
ANY authority (by contract) over members is the RIPE NCC. 

NOT the "community", NOT the RIPE Chair, NOT some hypothetical
expert, NOT anyone else but the RIPE NCC to the extent that the
SSA allows.

If your intention is to keep "the NCC staff
completely out of this" this is the wrong forum for this
proposal.


>That's what we tried to design with 2019-03, where the "neutral judge" 
>is a set of experts -- i.e. more than one.

So, as a network operator and NCC member, the opinion of your
"judge" interests me about as much as a fart in a thunderstorm.
And now?

>As i've written above, i'm open to suggestions about how to take the 
>Exec Board out of the picture, so that could be incorporated in 
>version 2.0 (please see #9 above).

So, this proposal essentially now aims to by-pass the RIPE NCC
entirely and establish some sort of Vehmic court
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehmic_court] to "condemn" bad
actors. 
Why is this proposal here then and not, i dunno, on Twitter?
WG-chairs, please take appropriate action.

rgds,
SL