JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via anti-abuse-wg wrote on 22/03/2019 22:55:
The legal bindings of the NCC already have that for those that don’t
follow existing policies, don’t pay bills, etc. So, the proposal is
adding in the table a policy for confirming what is a hijack according
to the community consensus. Same way we did for how we distribute
resources, do transfers, etc.
Hi Jordi,
couple of things:
1. it's not the job of the RIPE NCC to make up for a short-fall of civil
legislation in this area, no matter how distasteful we might find the
consequences of this;
2. you can throw anything into a contract, but that doesn't mean it's
enforceable or even lawful.
In other words, if the RIPE Community were to pass a particular policy,
that wouldn't mean the policy would automatically be binding on the RIPE
NCC membership, even if the RIPE NCC SSA includes a clause to state that
a member will adhere to RIPE policies.
In this particular case, the suggestion is for the RIPE NCC to start
making judgements about potentially legal actions between second or
third parties, potentially involving non-related resources and to deny
and/or withdraw number registration services on that basis. This does
not sound legally enforceable.
What complicates things further is that the RIPE NCC has an effective
monopoly for internet number registration services in this part of the
world. If withdrawal of these monopoly services were found to be
unlawful, this would be taken extremely seriously by any court or
regulatory authority.
Nick
