All,
can I ask every participant in this discussion to PLEASE, PLEASE
quote properly. It's becoming absolutely impossible to ascertain
who wrote what and who made a statement and who answered it.
To brass tacks:
On Sat, Mar 23, 2019 at 01:44:21PM +0100, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via
anti-abuse-wg wrote:
Immediate membership suspension at the end if the experts decide it's
necessary to do so now.
This is not possible under the SSA/ripe-697. Section 1.2.1.1 of
ripe-697 states clearly the grounds for termination of
membership. "BGP hijacking" is not one of them. While it is
presumably possible to add additional reasons, it will be,
TTBOMK, only by membership vote.
I did at the start decide to give this proposal the benefit of
the doubt but I am now convinced that its intent is the
subversion of the RIPE NCC in order to force it to abuse its
dominant market position to remove from (internet) existence,
members who exhibit behaviour that, while arguably legal,
elements of this community don't like.
Moreover, the proposal aims at doing this while largely
excluding the RIPE NCC itself from the decision-making process,
instead using some panel of "experts" to decide who should live
and who should die. Whence the authority of these "experts"
comes is not explained. The NCC Board is then, or so I surmise,
tasked with giving this decision an air of legitimacy by
ratifying it. Why the (unpaid) Board would even accept such a
questionable honour, I don't know, especially in light of the
potential liabilities.
Further, the danger exists that this community is not done yet.
Once a mechanism to terminate unwelcome behaviour is established,
it is relatively easy to plug in any other behaviour that this
community, or elements thereof, would like to see removed from the
internet.
In conclusio, this proposal has the potential to irredeemably
damage the relationship the NCC has with its members and I would
even argue that it has the potential to threaten the very
existence of the NCC if the powers that be decide that it is
abusing its power as a monopoly provider.
For the avoidance of doubt, I remain in opposition,
SL
