[anti-abuse-wg] 2019-03 Review Phase (Resource Hijacking is a RIPE Policy Violation)

On Mon, 9 Sep 2019, Michele Neylon - Blacknight wrote:

> Carlos

Hi Michele, All,


> Nick and others have covered why it should be dropped in their emails to this list.

Quoting from Nick's:
"
that is as damning an impact analysis as I've ever seen, and it sends a 
clear signal that the proposal would not solve the root
problem while simultaneously being very harmful to the RIPE NCC.

I'd like to suggest to the chairs that this proposal be formally dropped. 
It's taken up a good deal of working group time at this
point and there is an obvious lack of consensus that the proposal should 
be adopted as a policy.

Nick
"

I simply read "very harmful" as "the possibility of lawsuits against 
RIPE NCC". Lawsuits can happen if you have the rules; if the rules are bad 
(or badly followed) or by the abscence of them (now...).

So i don't really agree with "very harmful".

The impact analysis points to a broad set of issues, YES, which we (the 
co-authors) may decide to address or not.



> It's also pretty clear that the cost implications of this proposal far 
> outweigh any potential benefit.

Perhaps i missed the numbers.

I only read in the IA about "significant finantial impact" (depending on 
the # of reports received) and "significant cost factor" (from liability 
insurance).



> So it should just be dropped.
>
> And your counterargument about cost is completely divorced from economic reality.

I haven't really seen a price tag.
The acceptance of that price tag will depend on the viewpoint -- a 
victim's viewpoint will certainly tolerate a higher price tag ;-)



> RIPE NCC are not the routing police.

Of course not. Here we can agree.

But the RIPE NCC already provides some means to identify who is actually 
breaking the *unwritten* rule that hijacks are not tolerated, and it 
could do a lot more (imho) for its community at large, the end-users, by 
removing hijackers from the system after they are *undoubtably* 
identified. :-)


Regards,
Carlos




> Regards
>
> Michele
>
> --
> Mr Michele Neylon
> Blacknight Solutions
> Hosting, Colocation & Domains
> https://www.blacknight.com/
> https://blacknight.blog/
> Intl. +353 (0) 59  9183072
> Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090
> Personal blog: https://michele.blog/
> Some thoughts: https://ceo.hosting/
> -------------------------------
> Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty
> Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland  Company No.: 370845
>
> On 09/09/2019, 15:53, "Carlos Friaças" <cfriacas at fccn.pt> wrote:
>
>
>    Hi Michele, All,
>
>    Can you be more specific about which problems derive from this proposal's
>    simple existence...?
>
>    About:
>       "going to cost more" -- when you try to improve something, it's
>       generally not cheaper, yes. but then there is "worth", which generates
>       different views.
>
>    (...)
>    The "causes more harms" bit is mostly derived from the possibility of
>    lawsuits...?
>
>    Regards,
>    Carlos
>
>
>    On Mon, 9 Sep 2019, Michele Neylon - Blacknight wrote:
>
>    > 100% agreed
>    >
>    > This proposal should be dropped as it's creating more problems, going to cost more and generally causes more harms than those it was aimed to solve.
>    >
>    >
>    >
>    > --
>    > Mr Michele Neylon
>    > Blacknight Solutions
>    > Hosting, Colocation & Domains
>    > https://www.blacknight.com/
>    > https://blacknight.blog/
>    > Intl. +353 (0) 59  9183072
>    > Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090
>    > Personal blog: https://michele.blog/
>    > Some thoughts: https://ceo.hosting/
>    > -------------------------------
>    > Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty
>    > Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland  Company No.: 370845
>    >
>    > On 05/09/2019, 17:15, "anti-abuse-wg on behalf of Nick Hilliard" <anti-abuse-wg-bounces at ripe.net on behalf of nick at foobar.org> wrote:
>    >
>    >    Marco Schmidt wrote on 05/09/2019 14:23:
>    >    > The RIPE NCC has prepared an impact analysis on this latest proposal
>    >    > version to support the community?s discussion. You can find the full
>    >    > proposal and impact analysis at:
>    >    > https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2019-03
>    >
>    >    that is as damning an impact analysis as I've ever seen, and it sends a
>    >    clear signal that the proposal would not solve the root problem while
>    >    simultaneously being very harmful to the RIPE NCC.
>    >
>    >    I'd like to suggest to the chairs that this proposal be formally
>    >    dropped.  It's taken up a good deal of working group time at this point
>    >    and there is an obvious lack of consensus that the proposal should be
>    >    adopted as a policy.
>    >
>    >    Nick
>    >
>    >
>    >
>    >
>    >
>
>