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

Hi, please see inline,


On Fri, 22 Mar 2019, Sascha Luck [ml] wrote:

(...)
> 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.

To access NCC services (namely RPKI...), paperwork is signed by legacy 
resource holders.


(...)
>> 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.

The 'tool' is not aimed at recovering resources.


(...)
> 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.

The NCC Board is not part of NCC staff.


(...)
>> 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?

This is only a proposal. It's not in place. Even if it reaches that point, 
if you do not engage in hijacking, you will not need to spend a brain 
cycle about this anymore.


(...)
>> 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.

This bit is open to discussion (as the rest is). As it stands in version 
1.0 it is the Exec Board who is expected to hold the knob for 
"ratification".


Regards,
Carlos


> rgds,
> SL
>