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

There are different things that can habbe.

What we are talking here is a breach of contract, i.e. two parties agree
on something and then one one does not stick to the agreement. This is
typically handled under civil law. The parties can agree agree to
whatever actions.

Then there is criminal law, which is a different matter. Stealing power
is probably illegal under criminal law in most places. Hijacking a BGP
prefix, I don't know, it may be, but there is most likely no law that
says "Hijacking a BGP prefix is illegal" But it may be illegal to
disrupt a communication service. That needs to be checked.

Now the police typically only must act in serious crimes (murder), but
can act on lesser charges (petty theft). There is no equality when you
are breaking the law.

What we are talking here is contractual issues. You can do agree to
*almost* anything in a contract, but only almost. This is important and
is here to prevent misuse of the party delivering a service.

So i suggest we consider this whole thing as
- We try to fix a contract, so RIPE has the possibility to stop certain
bad behaviour.
- We are not taking people to court in this (one could add a sentence to
that effect) But we're not in the policing business.
- We don't know how effective this new clause will be, it may not help,
because the bad guys come up with another idea, or because it creates
too much work, or whatever. In any case, we then can always abolish it.

Personally I'd say let's try to find obvious problems, fix these in the
policy proposal and then try it out.

Cheers
Serge

PS: I'm not a lawyer, but I happen to be involved in such issue a lot
lately.








On 23.03.19 07:02, Lu Heng wrote:
> Emm...so if someone steal your house you will take your staff back from
> his home without police and court? Because you “admin” your staff?
> 
> Try that next time and try your best explain to the judge why you think
> he took your staff give you rights to become police.
> 
> On Sat, Mar 23, 2019 at 18:50 ac <ac at main.me <mailto:ac at main.me>> wrote:
> 
>     On Sat, 23 Mar 2019 18:29:55 +0800
>     Lu Heng <h.lu at anytimechinese.com <mailto:h.lu at anytimechinese.com>>
>     wrote:
>     > When you stealing electricity the electricity company will not cut
>     > your electricity at home but report you to the policy.
>     >
>     > No one saying stealing is ok, but no one agrees electricity company
>     > should have policing power.
>     >
> 
>     bottom line: you can do what you like with your electricity but the
>     electricity company cannot allow you to just take any electricity as
>     the electricity company is responsible for the administration of the
>     electricity.
> 
>     not stopping you from taking someone else's electricity is not a
>     "policing" or "judicial" thing - it is an administrative power as this
>     is the primary job of the electricity company: administer the
>     electricity.
> 
>     otherwise why have an electricity company at all?
> 
>     just let anyone use any electricity they like.
> 
>     this is a stupid thread.
> 
> 
>     >
>     >
>     > On Sat, Mar 23, 2019 at 18:27 ac <ac at main.me <mailto:ac at main.me>>
>     wrote:
>     >
>     > > On Sat, 23 Mar 2019 18:04:22 +0800
>     > > Lu Heng <h.lu at anytimechinese.com
>     <mailto: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
>     <mailto: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
>     <http://147g8oobra912cx47.com>
>     > > > >
>     > > > > versus a HIJACKING complaint received about apple.com
>     <http://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
>     <mailto: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
>     <mailto:anti-abuse-wg-bounces at ripe.net>> on
>     > > > > > behalf of ac <ac at main.me <mailto:ac at main.me>> Sent:
>     Saturday, March 23, 2019 1:44
>     > > > > > PM To: anti-abuse-wg at ripe.net <mailto: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
>     <mailto: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
>     <mailto:anti-abuse-wg-bounces at ripe.net>> on
>     > > > > > > behalf of ac <ac at main.me <mailto:ac at main.me>> Sent:
>     Saturday, March 23, 2019
>     > > > > > > 11:16 AM To: anti-abuse-wg at ripe.net
>     <mailto: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 <mailto: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
> 
> -- 
> --
> Kind regards.
> Lu
> 

-- 
Dr. Serge Droz
Member of the FIRST Board of Directors       Senior Advisor
https://www.first.org                        https://www.ict4peace.org