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

Hi,
(please see inline)


On Thu, 5 Sep 2019, Alex de Joode wrote:

> ??Dropping it might be the best thing:
> The document does not clearly state what the procedure is (binding arbitrage? (the decision leads to a conclusion that might 
> have an effect on the status of the LIR involved? (with anonymous 'experts' who act as 'judges' ? (a legal no-no))). 

The ruleset now is A.
2019-03 proposes to extend A, then the ruleset would become A+B.
People who doesn't abide by the rules, can have their LIR status changed, 
either the ruleset is A or A+B.

About the experts, v2 really expanded on the subject -- which resulted 
from a lot of diverse input. Experts are not completely anonymous, because 
they would have to collect support statements to enter the pool. The case 
assignments shouldn't be public in order to "avoid bribery attempts or 
reprisal actions against them". Is this something against Dutch Law? If 
that is the case, then "7." on Section 6 must be scrapped.


> The proposal does not rule out the "hijacker" going to civil court if 
> they might lose their LIR status (and IP space), if not RIPE 
> will just incur extra costs. (going to civil court is impossible to 
> rule out, anyways).

Yes, and going to courts also may happen when a company loses LIR status 
by any other reason, which is already part of the current ruleset... :-))



> Do the contacts the LIR has with RIPE need 
> to be  amended for this to function ?  (What if the LIRs refuse to sign 
> the new contract, due to this introduced risk)

I don't think the contracts need to be amended, in the same way they 
didn't need to be ammended to include the possibility of losing membership 
if (for instance) false documents are provided to the RIPE NCC...

Thanks for your input.

Regards,
Carlos



> ?-- IDGARA | Alex de Joode | +31651108221
> 
> On Thu, 05-09-2019 21h 46min, Alex de Joode <adejoode at idgara.nl> wrote:
>       ?Dropping it might be the best thing:
> The document does not clearly state what the procedure is (binding arbitrage? (the decision leads to a conclusion that might 
> have an effect on the status of the LIR involved? (with anonymous 'experts' who act as 'judges' ? (a legal no-no))). 
> 
> The proposal does not rule out the "hijacker" going to civil court if they might lose their LIR status (and IP space), if not RIPE 
> will just incur extra costs. (going to civil court is impossible to rule out, anyways). Do the contacts the LIR has with RIPE need 
> to be  amended for this to function ?  (What if the LIRs refuse to sign the new contract, due to this introduced risk)
> 
> ?-- IDGARA | Alex de Joode | +31651108221
> 
> On Thu, 05-09-2019 20h 56min, Erik Bais <erik at bais.name> wrote:
>       I fully agree with Nick.
>
>       Drop it like its hot ...
>
>       Erik Bais
>
>       > Op 5 sep. 2019 om 18:15 heeft Nick Hilliard <nick at foobar.org> het volgende geschreven:
>       >
>       > I'd like to suggest to the chairs that this proposal be formally dropped.
> 
> 
>