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 ]
ac
ac at main.me
Sat Mar 23 06:46:05 CET 2019
On Fri, 22 Mar 2019 17:13:20 +0000 Nick Hilliard <nick at foobar.org> wrote: > Regarding over-reach, the RIPE NCC was instituted as a numbering > registry and as a supporting organisation for the RIPE Community, > whose terms of reference are described in the RIPE-1 document. The > terms of reference make it clear that the purpose of the RIPE > Community and the RIPE NCC is internet co-ordination and - pointedly > - not enforcement. Proposal 2019-03 goes well outside the scope of > what the RIPE Community and the RIPE NCC were constituted to do, and > I do not believe that the Anti Abuse working group has the authority > to override this. > the wg is not overriding anything. 2019-03 is about removing resources, in much the same way as same resources would have been removed for payment. (RIPE NCC accounts person would "judge" that there was no payment and resources would be affected) Just because there is a decision it does not mean that such a decision is "law enforcement" or judicial. 2019-03 is administrative and not legal/law/judicial > The second point relates to the long term consequences of the > proposal. If the RIPE Community were to pass this policy, then it > would direct the RIPE NCC to act as both a judiciary and policing > agency for internet abuse. Judgement and enforcement of behaviour > are the competence of national governments, courts and law No. You are saying the same thing, though eloquently, in a different way and trying to link it to some future potential hijacking by gov of RIR. It is not much of a decision that RIPE NCC has to make either as: 1. There was hijacking OR 2. There was no hijacking Whether it was accidental, ongoing for long period of time and all the other technical and scientific facts, this may require some sort of interpretation of facts. But, not whether it actually happened or not. > > 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. > ianal, NCC legal will surely evaluate the legal aspects, but practically every new shell company that has to deal with compliance and other issues is just another layer in the onion.
- 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 ]