[anti-abuse-wg] 2019-03 and over-reach

ugh, english. I do not mean external as in outside I meant external as in not
allocated.

for example: complaint received about 147g8oobra912cx47.com

versus a HIJACKING complaint received about apple.com

my argument would be that; as 147Goobra912cX.com is not allocated, any
complaints about such a resource is outside the scope of any
administrative authority - and ianal, but, some of what Nick Hilliard
said, may apply. Same as abuse BY a resource, when what Nick Hilliard
said, may also apply.

The main point is that;

Because: "hijacking" of a domain name (or any resource) is a direct
administrative issue (this is factual - as per my previous post)

BUT

abuse BY a domain name (or any resource) is not necessarily an
administrative issue at all (this is debatable/opinion) - as you said
"some" TLD responds some do not...and RIPE NCC is not the Internet
Police....

So, anyway, as 2019-03 deals with hijacking, this entire over reach
argument is factually not relevant at all

and, more so: 2019-03 not proceeding would be counter to the ethical
administration of resources, a dereliction of responsibility and a breach 
of trust implied in any such administration (as well as administrative authority)


On Sat, 23 Mar 2019 08:20:01 +0000
Suresh Ramasubramanian <ops.lists at gmail.com> wrote:

> They either find out for themselves or someone else points it out to
> them. In either case their responsibility continues if what you say
> holds good
> 
> --srs
> 
> ________________________________
> From: anti-abuse-wg <anti-abuse-wg-bounces at ripe.net> on behalf of ac
> <ac at main.me> Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2019 1:44 PM
> To: anti-abuse-wg at ripe.net
> Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-03 and over-reach
> 
> 
> some of what the wg discusses are opinions and some things are
> scientific facts.
> 
> scientific facts may change as environments and other variables
> change, but currently it is so that;
> 
> there is NO TLD registry that will allow the ongoing random hijacking
> of domain names (under that TLD of course)
> 
> as, this would mean that the TLD does not need to exist at all and/or
> it will not have any trust/value.
> 
> RIPE NCC though, is factually a resource administrative authority.
> 
> As such, it does need to administer resources and an integral part of
> that resource administration is the core responsibility implied by
> such administration itself and the balance of exercising such
> authority with the implied and direct responsibility of any such
> administration.
> 
> Factually, the authority to allocate (or not) is administrative.
> 
> I think (my opinion) is that the confusion arises due to whether a
> resource (whether it be a domain name, ip number, etc) is allocated,
> or not. When resources are allocated the administrative responsibility
> is not degraded, in fact a very strong argument could be made that the
> inverse is true: Allocated resources increases the level of
> administrative authority, responsibility and all of the administration
> aspects themselves.
> 
> Now, TLD (or RIPE NCC) managing **"external"** complaints about direct
> abuse, is, imho, outside the scope of an administrative authority and
> would be the scenario Nick Hilliard refers to. Then again, this is my
> opinion, so I may be completely wrong (or not) :)
> 
> On Sat, 23 Mar 2019 07:27:40 +0000
> Suresh Ramasubramanian <ops.lists at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > There's also the interesting comparison of how some TLD registries -
> > many of them - act on canceling spam and phish domains while others
> > go to every extreme not to do so.
> >
> > --srs
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: anti-abuse-wg <anti-abuse-wg-bounces at ripe.net> on behalf of ac
> > <ac at main.me> Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2019 11:16 AM
> > To: anti-abuse-wg at ripe.net
> > Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-03 and over-reach
> >
> > 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.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >  
> 
>