<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
</head>
<body>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div style="direction: ltr;">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.
</div>
<div style="direction: ltr;"></div>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div class="ms-outlook-ios-signature">
<div style="direction: ltr;">--srs</div>
</div>
</div>
<div> </div>
<hr style="display:inline-block;width:98%" tabindex="-1">
<div id="divRplyFwdMsg" dir="dir="ltr""><font face="Calibri, sans-serif" style="font-size:11pt" color="#000000"><b>From:</b> anti-abuse-wg <anti-abuse-wg-bounces@ripe.net> on behalf of ac <ac@main.me><br>
<b>Sent:</b> Saturday, March 23, 2019 11:16 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-03 and over-reach
<div> </div>
</font></div>
On Fri, 22 Mar 2019 17:13:20 +0000 <br>
Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org> wrote: <br>
> Regarding over-reach, the RIPE NCC was instituted as a numbering <br>
> registry and as a supporting organisation for the RIPE Community, <br>
> whose terms of reference are described in the RIPE-1 document. The <br>
> terms of reference make it clear that the purpose of the RIPE <br>
> Community and the RIPE NCC is internet co-ordination and - pointedly <br>
> - not enforcement. Proposal 2019-03 goes well outside the scope of <br>
> what the RIPE Community and the RIPE NCC were constituted to do, and <br>
> I do not believe that the Anti Abuse working group has the authority <br>
> to override this. <br>
> <br>
the wg is not overriding anything. 2019-03 is about removing resources, <br>
in much the same way as same resources would have been removed for <br>
payment. (RIPE NCC accounts person would "judge" that there was no <br>
payment and resources would be affected) <br>
<br>
Just because there is a decision it does not mean that such a decision <br>
<br>
is "law enforcement" or judicial. <br>
<br>
2019-03 is administrative <br>
<br>
and not legal/law/judicial <br>
<br>
> The second point relates to the long term consequences of the <br>
> proposal. If the RIPE Community were to pass this policy, then it <br>
> would direct the RIPE NCC to act as both a judiciary and policing <br>
> agency for internet abuse. Judgement and enforcement of behaviour <br>
> are the competence of national governments, courts and law <br>
<br>
No. You are saying the same thing, though eloquently, in a different way <br>
and trying to link it to some future potential hijacking by gov of RIR. <br>
<br>
It is not much of a decision that RIPE NCC has to make either as: <br>
<br>
1. There was hijacking <br>
<br>
OR <br>
<br>
2. There was no hijacking <br>
<br>
Whether it was accidental, ongoing for long period of time and all the <br>
other technical and scientific facts, this may require some sort of <br>
interpretation of facts. <br>
<br>
But, not whether it actually happened or not. <br>
<br>
> <br>
> But, this is not how to handle the problem of BGP hijacking. Even if <br>
> it had the slightest possibility of making any difference at a <br>
> technical level (which it won't), the proposal would set the RIPE <br>
> Community and the RIPE NCC down a road which I believe would be <br>
> extremely unwise to take from a legal and political point of view, <br>
> and which would be difficult, if not impossible to manoeuver out of. <br>
> <br>
ianal, NCC legal will surely evaluate the legal aspects, but <br>
practically every new shell company that has to deal with compliance <br>
and other issues is just another layer in the onion. <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</div>
</body>
</html>