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

Nick are making good point.

How about murder is a policy violation?

How about rape is a policy violation?

Putting RIPE NCC in a juridical position just not what RIPE NCC is.

And start using the threat “if you do bad thing(whatever that is) we will
take your IP number back” just simply a bad thing both for community as
well as for the registry.

It’s very much like electricity company tell you if you do something bad we
will cut you off and stop supply electricity.and yes, they will cut you if
you stop paying them, but that doesn’t mean they can make themselve self
juridical court in any bad thing happen in this world.

Internet, or registry, are starting if not already is, become part of base
infrastructure of the society, but that does not give us any rights in the
society to become the supreme court of the society, just like your water
company or electricity company won’t judge you for what you use water or
electricity for.



On Sat, Mar 23, 2019 at 16:54 ac <ac at main.me> wrote:

>
> 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.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
--
Kind regards.
Lu
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/anti-abuse-wg/attachments/20190323/c659c560/attachment.html>