[anti-abuse-wg] 2019-03 New Policy Proposal (BGP Hijacking is a RIPE Policy Violation)

In message <XF$mHQJz$RocFAJG at highwayman.com>, 
Richard Clayton <richard at highwayman.com> wrote:

>Instead, experts are used by those who are charged with dispensing
>justice as a means of understanding what is likely to have gone on, and
>these people then weigh the various opinions of the experts (or indeed
>their unanimity) in coming to their decision.

I agree completely that this is the way the process -should- indeed work
(when "hijacking" charges are being adjudicated).  And in fact, I have
previously stated exactly that position in private email to the main
sponsor/author of 2019-03.

>So a policy which said that unauthorised BGP hijacking was unacceptable
>behaviour and charged RIPE NCC with addressing the problem if it was
>caused by anyone who used RIPE resources would I think be helpful.

Once again, we are in perfect agreement.

>Telling RIPE NCC exactly how to recognise and deal with BGP hijacking
>(and specifying exactly how experts and no one else will determine what
>has occurred) is I think unhelpful and attempts to move forward this way
>are likely to be counterproductive.

I agree that subject-matter experts should not themselves be the adjudicators
but rather that they should merely be resources that are available to the
actual adjudicators.

If, hypothetically, that change were made to 2019-03 would it then be
something that you'd support?  Or did you see other issues?


Regards,
rfg