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

On Sat, Mar 23, 2019 at 18:58 JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via anti-abuse-wg <
anti-abuse-wg at ripe.net> wrote:

> El 23/3/19 11:39, "Lu Heng" <h.lu at anytimechinese.com> escribió:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, Mar 23, 2019 at 18:35 JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via anti-abuse-wg <
> anti-abuse-wg at ripe.net> wrote:
>
> Hi Lu,
>
>
>
> El 23/3/19 11:30, "anti-abuse-wg en nombre de Lu Heng" <
> anti-abuse-wg-bounces at ripe.net en nombre de h.lu at anytimechinese.com>
> escribió:
>
>
>
> When you stealing electricity the electricity company will not cut your
> electricity at home but report you to the policy.
>
>
>
> Depends on the contract. In my country, they are able to do, even at the
> same time all those:
>
> 1.       Cut your electricity
>
> 2.       Claim the case to the police (criminal case)
>
> 3.       Claim the case to the courts for the damages (civil case)
>
> No, if you stealing electricity at  random building, your home electricity
> will not be cut off, I don’t see any contract of electric company of any
> country would do that.
>
>
>
> When you steal electricity, even if you do from the company, you can
> create troubles to other people, because you’re using “dangerous”
> connections to the grid. The electricity company can cut it as soon as they
> detect it.
>
>
>
> This is in the newspapers as happening in some towns of the South of
> Spain, almost every other day. They have dangerous (fire, electrocution,
> etc.) installations to grow marijuana, which also take resources from the
> network disturbing other neighbors because the power needs create frequent
> “protection cuts”, etc.
>

That’s right, but if you steal at random building, they will stop you from
stealing but will not cut your home electricity off, nor they will cut all
the house under your name.

You will get busted by police and court will decide how to punish you, but
I am 100% sure that doesn’t involve cut your home electricity off.



>
> No one saying stealing is ok, but no one agrees electricity company should
> have policing power.
>
>
>
> Sometimes the stealing is not from the electricity company, but from a
> neighbors. Bad guys don’t care if they are damaging other people.
>
> I don’t see the relevence to the discussion here. Doesn’t matter who they
> steal to, it’s a police matter not a electricity company matter.
>
>
>
> The relevance is that a hijack is stealing resources (not just ASNs or
> addresses, but also bandwidth, routing slots, time to deal with it, etc.)
> from the community, and the community can decide to have rules about that.
>
>
>
> On Sat, Mar 23, 2019 at 18:27 ac <ac at main.me> wrote:
>
> On Sat, 23 Mar 2019 18:04:22 +0800
> Lu Heng <h.lu at anytimechinese.com> wrote:
> >
> > 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
>
> they also cut if you cheat by stealing electricity.
>
> you not talk about stealing but you and Nick talk about how use
> electricity.
>
> use any way you like, ripe not internet police, but you no steal, okay?
>
> > make themselve self juridical court in any bad thing happen in this
> > world.
> >
> not every bad thing, just administrative duty to say stealing is stealing.
>
> stealing not the same as using electricity to fry naughty neighbor in
> chair.
>
> stealing is when you no pay for electricity you use to fry neighbor, see?
>
> you use for anything bad, this your business, ripe not judicial court,
> administrative authority.
>
> but you no hijack, okay?
>
> > 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
>
> --
>
> --
> Kind regards.
> Lu
>
>
> **********************************************
> IPv4 is over
> Are you ready for the new Internet ?
> http://www.theipv6company.com
> The IPv6 Company
>
> This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or
> confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of
> the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized
> disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this
> information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly
> prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the
> intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or
> use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including
> attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal
> offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this
> communication and delete it.
>
> --
>
> --
> Kind regards.
> Lu
>
> **********************************************
> IPv4 is over
> Are you ready for the new Internet ?
> http://www.theipv6company.com
> The IPv6 Company
>
> This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or
> confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of
> the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized
> disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this
> information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly
> prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the
> intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or
> use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including
> attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal
> offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this
> communication and delete it.
>
> --
--
Kind regards.
Lu
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/anti-abuse-wg/attachments/20190323/41f81a3a/attachment.html>