Hi,
On Mon, 1 Apr 2019, Sascha Luck [ml] wrote:
On Mon, Apr 01, 2019 at 05:06:37PM +0100, Carlos Friaas via anti-abuse-wg
wrote:
The same way it happens with lack of payment,
explicitly part of the contract (SSA).
or delivering false/forged information to the NCC.
explicitly part of the contract.
You are trying to change the contract. You can't do that here.
"The Member acknowledges applicability of, and adheres to, the RIPE
Policies and RIPE NCC procedural documents" -- you know... those that
could change with time...?
with, i.e. punishment by withdrawal of resources.
It shouldn't be their decision, it should be the experts' decision.
It gets better. By *what* authority does your expert get to
decide that a LIR should be punished? Deo gratias? It can't be a contractual
obligation, I have no damn contract
with some expert...
"RIPE Policies" -- you are trying to discuss if a given policy is
admissible even during the initial discussion phase...
It's possibly my fault, but (in this long thread) i still fail to read from
someone that hijacking is not offensive, and thus it should be tolerated by
the community. I understand you are trying to take this into a grey area by
comparison with other examples/abuse.
It is quite possible to find "hijacking" offensive and yet to
oppose a dangerous and totalitarian policy.
Dangerous to who exactly?
Totalitarian? It's not one person which would be ruling directly over any
consequence.
Perhaps with version 2.0 (if you care to read it) you will be able to
calculate the minimum number of people involved until a LIR closure
actually becomes possible.
Regards,
Carlos
rgds,
SL
