<html xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"><style></style></head><body lang=ES link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1>Hi Lu,<o:p></o:p><div><div>El 23/3/19 11:04, "anti-abuse-wg en nombre de Lu Heng" <<a href="mailto:anti-abuse-wg-bounces@ripe.net">anti-abuse-wg-bounces@ripe.net</a> en nombre de <a href="mailto:h.lu@anytimechinese.com">h.lu@anytimechinese.com</a>> escribió:<o:p></o:p></div></div><div><o:p> </o:p></div><div><div>Nick are making good point.<o:p></o:p></div></div><div><o:p> </o:p></div><div>How about murder is a policy violation?<o:p></o:p></div><div><o:p> </o:p></div><div>How about rape is a policy violation?<o:p></o:p><o:p> </o:p>If you have in your contract an AUP that prohibits illegal activities (DDoS, spam, child pornography, etc.), you have the right to disconnect that customer. You just need to make sure to be able to probe it in case he brings you to the courts. The prosecutor will dismiss the case against you and make sure that the other party is actually judged.<o:p></o:p><o:p> </o:p>In those “clear” cases, the AUP doesn’t need even to exist. If you’re in doubt you can inform the LEA “hey I found a guy using my network fur such bad things, I’m going to disconnect him, to avoid any penalties on my own”. They may tell you, via a court order (which in those cases I’ve seen they can happen in a matter of hours), please keep him connected for a few days so we can catch some other involved folks, and you’re then “excused” of anything wrong.<o:p></o:p><o:p> </o:p>If you’re aware of criminal or illegal activities, and you don’t act against them, at least via a LEA notification, you may be found guilty of criminal cooperation as well.<o:p></o:p></div><div><o:p> </o:p></div><div>Putting RIPE NCC in a juridical position just not what RIPE NCC is.<o:p></o:p></div><div><o:p> </o:p>What this policy advocates is not that far as the examples I just wrote, but I think they are need to refute the latest messages about “murders and rapes”.<o:p></o:p><o:p> </o:p>See my previous emails and the example of the sports club.<o:p></o:p><o:p> </o:p></div><div>And start using the threat “if you do bad thing(whatever that is) we will take your IP number back” just simply a bad thing both for community as well as for the registry.<o:p></o:p></div><div><o:p> </o:p></div><div>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 make themselve self juridical court in any bad thing happen in this world.<o:p></o:p></div><div><o:p> </o:p></div><div>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.<o:p></o:p></div><div><o:p> </o:p></div><div><o:p> </o:p></div><div><o:p> </o:p><div><div>On Sat, Mar 23, 2019 at 16:54 ac <<a href="mailto:ac@main.me">ac@main.me</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></div><blockquote style='border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0cm'> ugh, english. I do not mean external as in outside I meant external as in not allocated. for example: complaint received about <a href="http://147g8oobra912cx47.com" target="_blank">147g8oobra912cx47.com</a> versus a HIJACKING complaint received about <a href="http://apple.com" target="_blank">apple.com</a> 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 <<a href="mailto:ops.lists@gmail.com" target="_blank">ops.lists@gmail.com</a>> 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 <<a href="mailto:anti-abuse-wg-bounces@ripe.net" target="_blank">anti-abuse-wg-bounces@ripe.net</a>> on behalf of ac > <<a href="mailto:ac@main.me" target="_blank">ac@main.me</a>> Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2019 1:44 PM > To: <a href="mailto:anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net" target="_blank">anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net</a> > 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 <<a href="mailto:ops.lists@gmail.com" target="_blank">ops.lists@gmail.com</a>> 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 <<a href="mailto:anti-abuse-wg-bounces@ripe.net" target="_blank">anti-abuse-wg-bounces@ripe.net</a>> on behalf of ac > > <<a href="mailto:ac@main.me" target="_blank">ac@main.me</a>> Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2019 11:16 AM > > To: <a href="mailto:anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net" target="_blank">anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net</a> > > Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-03 and over-reach > > > > On Fri, 22 Mar 2019 17:13:20 +0000 > > Nick Hilliard <<a href="mailto:nick@foobar.org" target="_blank">nick@foobar.org</a>> 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > <o:p></o:p></blockquote></div></div>-- <o:p></o:p><div><div><div>-- Kind regards. Lu<o:p></o:p></div></div></div></div> ********************************************** 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. </body></html>