This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/[email protected]/
[anti-abuse-wg] 2019-03 and over-reach
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-03 and over-reach
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-03 and over-reach
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Suresh Ramasubramanian
ops.lists at gmail.com
Sat Mar 23 02:43:15 CET 2019
It would be a much needed thing if ripe legal were to chime in here so that they can issue an opinion on the proposal. This amateur theorizing isn't getting the discussion anywhere. --srs ________________________________ From: anti-abuse-wg <anti-abuse-wg-bounces at ripe.net> on behalf of Sascha Luck [ml] <aawg at c4inet.net> Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2019 5:07 AM To: anti-abuse-wg at ripe.net Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-03 and over-reach On Fri, Mar 22, 2019 at 05:13:20PM +0000, Nick Hilliard wrote: >The aim of the 2019-03 proposal, as far as I understand it, is to >grant the RIPE NCC the authority to make formal judgements about >alleged abuse of network resources with the implicit intention that >unless the party involved ends the alleged abuse, the RIPE NCC would >enforce the judgement by LIR shutdown if the alleged infringer were a >member, or refusal to provide service if the alleged infringer were >not. It is actually worse than this, as I understand it. Based on recent contributions in this discussion, I now understand that it is proposed to make the determination of "network abuse" entirely outside the NCC and then to give this determination to the NCC Board to rubber-stamp and enforce it (and, implicitly assume the legal liability, one would presume) >There are other pile of other considerations here, not least whether >the RIPE NCC would have any legal jurisdiction to deregister resources >where it had determined "abuse", and what the legal liability of the >company would be if it were determined that they didn't have >jurisdiction to act. I am also somewhat worried about the possible fall-out for the members if the NCC were to be found to have acted incorrectly and be liable for the damages to the business of a member that was shut down... I would be very interested in NCC Legal's opinion on this. >But, this is not how to handle the problem of BGP hijacking. Even if it >had the slightest possibility of making any difference at a technical >level (which it won't), the proposal would set the RIPE Community and >the RIPE NCC down a road which I believe would be extremely unwise to >take from a legal and political point of view, and which would be >difficult, if not impossible to manoeuver out of. Much better put than I could hope to do, I fully endorse this statement. rgds, SL >Nick > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: </ripe/mail/archives/anti-abuse-wg/attachments/20190323/c92bd348/attachment.html>
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-03 and over-reach
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-03 and over-reach
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]