Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-03 New Policy Proposal (BGP Hijacking is a RIPE Policy Violation)
> > I agree, but to avoid throwing the baby out with the bathwater, I would > suggest to you that it would be best if you could suggest to the proposal's > author and sponsor some different language with respect to the procedure > for judging such matters... some different process that would address > your reasonable concerns about process... rather than just saying that > the whole proposal is unacceptable. > > In short, it appears that yur objection here is about implementation > details, and that you do not object to the over-arching concept, assuming > of course that the process of adjudicating such matters may be made > substantially more reliable and fool-proof. Perhaps. I've spoken with at least one of the authors and am still not entirely convinced the wording can be done such that it reasonably addresses the issues I've presented. I'll reserve judgement until version 2.0 is released for discussion. see last line So you do agree that there is a -possibility- that a threat exists and that > it might, in theory, and under some appropriate circumstances, be > diminished > or eliminated by the termination of the RIPE contract with certain well > proven and accurately identified "rogue" members, yes? > If a NCC member is actively and willfully, after having been notified and given ample opportunity to resolve the issue, engaged in widespread hijacking such that RIR/NIR members have complained about their ability to use their own resources, yes. That case has nothing at all to do with the theft OF IP ADDRESSES, and thus, > it is rather entirely irrelevant to this discussion. > The case does deal with the slippery slope argument in that it demonstrates at least one instance of modern law where removing content from an online service (at all) resulted in an opening for legal liability. While not an issue specific to policy discussion, I do believe it is worth consideration when determining potential breadth of the policy. Action should be well backed with evidence. see last line My apologies for not quoting the relevant section properly. I disagree, and apparently, so does Cloudflare. And they should know. > Cloudflare's blog post on the subject has comments on the matter. One of their staff members is known for stating "Is this the day the Internet dies?", a reference to the fact that they acknowledge they (at the time) were about to take content offline for what were non-required reasons. https://blog.cloudflare.com/why-we-terminated-daily-stormer/ That isn't to say that I think this is an inherently bad option. I just think it needs to be balanced such that it is clearly justified when action is taken. see last line The question is whether or not this proposal is a demonstrably bad way to > -try- to begin > to address the problem, at least in part. I remind you that right now > there > is essentially -zero- disincentive to the act of deliberate hijacking. > Getting depeered by transits, losing IX memberships, and having gear seized by authorities all seem like potential disincentives. Having a bunch of NCC-allocated IP space doesn't matter when you are unable to use it. Again, I am in agreement with you, but I do believe that this is a matter > of fine-tuning the procedural aspects of the propsal, rather than simply > opposing or abandoning it wholesale. > Agreed so far as being open to revisions. see last line Given the number of references I've made to rev 2.0, I'll likely hold additional comments until it is released, as they are quite possibly irrelevant. Jacob Slater On Mon, Apr 1, 2019 at 11:24 PM Ronald F. Guilmette wrote: > > In message < > cafv686cuabmpiq1e6owd2ovwna4x6otvbfxshd0bjosmdle...@mail.gmail.com>, > Jacob Slater wrote: > > >In the case of IP addresses and ASNs, the "convicted individual" has been, > >under the current policy draft, convicted in the mind of one - perhaps two > >upon appeal - experts (a term which has yet to be defined in policy). Such > >an opinion, no matter how professional, is a very low bar to be taking as > >objective. > > I agree, but to avoid throwing the baby out with the bathwater, I would > suggest to you that it would be best if you could suggest to the proposal's > author and sponsor some different language with respect to the procedure > for judging such matters... some different process that would address > your reasonable concerns about process... rather than just saying that > the whole proposal is unacceptable. > > In short, it appears that yur objection here is about implementation > details, and that you do not object to the over-arching concept, assuming > of course that the process of adjudicating such matters may be made > substantially more reliable and fool-proof. > > >Should the NCC be allocating them more addresses? > >It is justified (morally, ethically, and perhaps even legally) to continue > >treating all entities as equals by allocating resources for their use > >unless they have been determined to be a distinct threat by a
Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-03 New Policy Proposal (BGP Hijacking is a RIPE Policy Violation)
In message , Jacob Slater wrote: >In the case of IP addresses and ASNs, the "convicted individual" has been, >under the current policy draft, convicted in the mind of one - perhaps two >upon appeal - experts (a term which has yet to be defined in policy). Such >an opinion, no matter how professional, is a very low bar to be taking as >objective. I agree, but to avoid throwing the baby out with the bathwater, I would suggest to you that it would be best if you could suggest to the proposal's author and sponsor some different language with respect to the procedure for judging such matters... some different process that would address your reasonable concerns about process... rather than just saying that the whole proposal is unacceptable. In short, it appears that yur objection here is about implementation details, and that you do not object to the over-arching concept, assuming of course that the process of adjudicating such matters may be made substantially more reliable and fool-proof. >Should the NCC be allocating them more addresses? >It is justified (morally, ethically, and perhaps even legally) to continue >treating all entities as equals by allocating resources for their use >unless they have been determined to be a distinct threat by a trustworthy >system, such as a board of peers (as in the case of a criminal conviction). So you do agree that there is a -possibility- that a threat exists and that it might, in theory, and under some appropriate circumstances, be diminished or eliminated by the termination of the RIPE contract with certain well proven and accurately identified "rogue" members, yes? >Keeping to my earlier discussion of the gun store analogy, I do not believe >that the opinion of a single expert (with the possibility of appeal) is >enough I agree. >> The proposal on the table doesn't deal with any matters which are in >> any way even remotely tied to mere offenses against any local or >> localize sensibilities. It doesn't even remotely have anything at >> all to do with either (a) any actions or offenses in "meatspace" nor >> (b) any actions or offenses having anything at all to do with -content- >> in any sense. The present proposal only has to do with the outright >> THEFT of IP addresses, i.e. the very commodity which RIPE is supposed to >> the responsible shepard of. > > >Within your jurisdiction, I can think of several cases which show this to >not be the case (ALS Scan, Inc. v. Cloudflare, Inc., et al. being one of >them). That case has nothing at all to do with the theft OF IP ADDRESSES, and thus, it is rather entirely irrelevant to this discussion. But I am glad that you brough it up anyway, because one one the points made by the *defendant* in that case, Cloudflare, actually underscores a point that I have tried to make here, i.e. that the act of disiplining any one RIPE member, or even several of them, as is contemplated by 2019-03, is quite clearly *not* equivalent to some kind of totalitarian banning, from the entire Internet, of any particular piece of content. But I will let Cloudflare's own legal argument make the point for me: https://torrentfreak.com/cloudflares-cache-can-substantially-assist-copyright-infringers-court-rules-180314/ "One of Cloudflare's arguments was that it did not substantially assist copyright infringements because the sites would remain online even if they were terminated from the service. It can't end the infringements entirely on its own, the company argued." So, as you see, even Cloudflare itself made the point that simply eliminating any one (bad) provider does virtually nothing at all to remove from the entire Internet any given piece of -content-. And this certainly matches up with my own experience. >Blocking content distribution methods is effectively blocking the content I disagree, and apparently, so does Cloudflare. And they should know. >I've still yet to be convinced that this would substantially cut down on >hijacking; Maybe it wouldn't. The question isn't whether it would or not. The question is whether or not this proposal is a demonstrably bad way to -try- to begin to address the problem, at least in part. I remind you that right now there is essentially -zero- disincentive to the act of deliberate hijacking. Maybe it is time to try something different and see if it will help. If it doesn't, then it can be discarded, and then some other approach can be tried instead. >additionally, I've yet to be convinced that such a policy would >not sweep up innocents due to its allowance of reports by the general >public and incredibly low bar for labeling someone a hijacker. Again, I am in agreement with you, but I do believe that this is a matter of fine-tuning the procedural aspects of the propsal, rather than simply opposing or abandoning it wholesale. Regards, rfg
Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-03 New Policy Proposal (BGP Hijacking is a RIPE Policy Violation)
Let's use a less loaded analogy than a gun store :-) Suppose we are dealing with a logistics company that uses stolen lorries/trucks. May their use of stolen vehicles potentially affect their carrier license? Note that, even if after many months of processes the agreement with the rir was terminated and the AS taken back, still that does not preclude the company from having ip addresses or having access to the internet. I expect the next draft not to rely on a single expert, but a panel of 3 experts (plus then the appealing phase). Would that solve your concerns? > Blocking content distribution methods is > effectively blocking the content itself. If your > newspaper was unable to print and distribute > their news because their electricity had been > shut off (for anything outside of nonpayment), > it would still be considered censorship. No. The newspaper may pay its electricity punctually, yet be required to have its electrical power shut off. A good example of that would be non-compliance with the local electricity regulation, which may range from an install so bad that could cause a fire to simply having an old meter which doesn't support real-time reading Should the action against the above-mentioned logistics company differ if it was used for delivery by a newspaper? You raise a good point that the allowance of reports by the general public could lead to attacks against 'unpopular' entities (such as a certain political party) by means of fake reports. However, given that it has to be based on technical facts, I'm not sure if that's already enough or there should be some additional speedy path in the proposal for them to be discarded (and where to put the line?). Ángel
Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-03 New Policy Proposal (BGP Hijacking is a RIPE Policy Violation)
All, In message <92716.1554145...@segfault.tristatelogic.com>, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote: >So, your local supermarket is also not allowed to sell anything to > >a convicted criminal? > > That analogy is a poor one. It would however be accurate to say that > my local GUN STORE is not allowed to sell firearms to a convicted > criminal. I would argue this analogy itself is poor. The gun store is directly supporting the convicted criminal in potentially committing further acts. The criminal in this instance has (presumably, at least in the jurisdiction you are referencing) been convicted through a given legal process. There is substantial risk of abuse and little barrier to entry to purchasing firearms. You do not need a firearm to survive in most regions today. In summary: high risk of danger (given their conviction), low potential benefit to allowing it, and low risk of causing harm to the individual or entity you have denied. In the case of IP addresses and ASNs, the "convicted individual" has been, under the current policy draft, convicted in the mind of one - perhaps two upon appeal - experts (a term which has yet to be defined in policy). Such an opinion, no matter how professional, is a very low bar to be taking as objective. Having access to content online (which inherently requires either your ISP or you to hold resources from the NCC or another RIR) is significantly more necessary. In summary: medium (perhaps low, depending on the expert selection) risk of danger, substantial potential benefit to allowing it, and high risk of causing harm to the individual or entity you have denied. Should RIPE be selling them more? Apparently, as of right now, there is no > rule in place to prevent this. And as I have already noted, the > company known as Universal IP Solution Corp. is still a member in > good standing of the RIPE association. > ... > If you are arguing that that is in any sense justifiable, either > morally, ethically, or even legally, please say so explicitly. > Should the NCC be allocating them more addresses? It is justified (morally, ethically, and perhaps even legally) to continue treating all entities as equals by allocating resources for their use unless they have been determined to be a distinct threat by a trustworthy system, such as a board of peers (as in the case of a criminal conviction). Keeping to my earlier discussion of the gun store analogy, I do not believe that the opinion of a single expert (with the possibility of appeal) is enough to determine their state. A multi-step process is needed in which an individual has many opportunities to prove their innocence. While I understand the goal of the policy in being expedient, I do not believe this process should be compromised in the name of expediency. A single appeal is not appropriate. The IP addresses they have are not directly aiding in hijacking. While their ASN may be, they could just as simply hijack another ASN. If IP space was to be revoked, they could simply hijack more as well. In my country, there is now at least one lawsuit, progressing through > the courts, against gun manufacturers for their supportive role in > some of our recent mass shootings. I hope that it does not take a > similar legal action against RIPE before RIPE adopts some rational > policies to prevent itself from being the handmadien of online > cyber-criminal enterprises and from then being reasonably and properly > held to legal account for this exact supportive role on ongoing > cyber-crime schemes > It is pointless to speculate about the outcome of such a legal proceeding before it has been decided. In message <92972.1554148...@segfault.tristatelogic.com>, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote: > >BGP hijacking is just the start, but there is an endless list of things > >which are considered offensive or illegal in some or all jurisdictions > >in the RIPE NCC service area, e.g. spam, porn, offending political > >leaders, gambling, drugs, other religions, political dissent, blasphemy > >and so on. > > As I have already pointed out, this "slippery slope" argument is a > smokescreen, and only being used to justify the inexcusible status quo. > > The proposal on the table doesn't deal with any matters which are in > any way even remotely tied to mere offenses against any local or > localize sensibilities. It doesn't even remotely have anything at > all to do with either (a) any actions or offenses in "meatspace" nor > (b) any actions or offenses having anything at all to do with -content- > in any sense. The present proposal only has to do with the outright > THEFT of IP addresses, i.e. the very commodity which RIPE is supposed to > the responsible shepard of. Within your jurisdiction, I can think of several cases which show this to not be the case (ALS Scan, Inc. v. Cloudflare, Inc., et al. being one of them). It would seem so, at least when the "slippery slope" arguments is > clearly being made in order to falsely try to scare people with
Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-03 New Policy Proposal (BGP Hijacking is a RIPE Policy Violation)
In message , Nick Hilliard wrote: >BGP hijacking is just the start, but there is an endless list of things >which are considered offensive or illegal in some or all jurisdictions >in the RIPE NCC service area, e.g. spam, porn, offending political >leaders, gambling, drugs, other religions, political dissent, blasphemy >and so on. As I have already pointed out, this "slippery slope" argument is a smokescreen, and only being used to justify the inexcusible status quo. The proposal on the table doesn't deal with any matters which are in any way even remotely tied to mere offenses against any local or localize sensibilities. It doesn't even remotely have anything at all to do with either (a) any actions or offenses in "meatspace" nor (b) any actions or offenses having anything at all to do with -content- in any sense. The present proposal only has to do with the outright THEFT of IP addresses, i.e. the very commodity which RIPE is supposed to the responsible shepard of. Given all of the supposed experience and intelligence of the people on this list, I seriously have no idea why it should be necessary for me to explain the abundantly clear distinction between content and the wires and IP infrastructure that carries that content. Is this a really difficult concept to understand? It would seem so, at least when the "slippery slope" arguments is clearly being made in order to falsely try to scare people with the bogeyman of "censorship". That is clearly not what the proposal is about, and anyone who claims otherwise needs to go back to school until he, she or it fully grasps the difference between content and the IP addresses that provide the technical means to distribute it. As those of us who have actually spent years opposing Internet abuse like to say, our concern is not about abuse "on the Internet" but rather it has to do with abuse "of the Internet". Since this distinction has obviously traveled slowly to the far side of the pond, I am forced to provide some (hopefully educational) illustrations. If someone sends you a highly offensive email, or makes a highly offensive Farcebook post, saying that your paternal grandmother is a actually a closet Visigoth, then that constitutes abuse -on- the Internet. If, on the other hand, some hacker infects your machines, and thousands like it, and then uses his entire collection of infescted machines to DDoS you, presumably because you just beat him in a game of League of Legends, then that is abuse -of- the Internet, because in this case, it is the infrastructure itself that is being misused and abused... and -that- kind of abuse affects all of us. I seriously would have hoped that it would not have been necessary for me to provide people on this mailing list, in particular, with examples to illustrate the clear conceptual differences betwen abuse "on" the Internet and abuse "of' the Internet, but apparently I hoped in vain, and this rather critical and key distinction is still being either throughly misunderstood or else throughly ignored when it comes to these bogus "slippery slope" arguments. Let me say it more clearly. Nobody wants to take away your porn. That's not what this is about, as any fair-minded reader of the propsal can easily see. The idea is simple: Those who steal IP addresses shall not be allowed to keep those and shall not in fact be alowed to keep any IP addresses. Nobody is proposing reclaiming IP space from anyone who has the audacity to say. on the Internet, that Stalin may have been, um, suboptimal. Nobody is even proposing that the worst Internet child porn purveyor ever detected by law enforcement should have his IPs taken away. Because this is not about content and never will be. Whst this *is* actually all about is just this: You steal IPs and then you lose your IPs. I honestly don't understand why otherwise intelligent people should have such a hard time grasping this rather simple concept. This is really not rocket science. Regards, rfg P.S. My sincere apologies, in advance, to any and all parties who may be offended by my reference to Visigoths. I meant no offense, either to them or to any of their descendants who may be present here. I'm quite sure that some among the Visigoth were very fine people, even though I never had the privilege of meeting any of them personally.
Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-03 New Policy Proposal (BGP Hijacking is a RIPE Policy Violation)
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
Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-03 New Policy Proposal (BGP Hijacking is a RIPE Policy Violation)
In message <20190401115412.gc97...@space.net>, Gert Doering wrote: >So, your local supermarket is also not allowed to sell anything to >a convicted criminal? That analogy is a poor one. It would however be accurate to say that my local GUN STORE is not allowed to sell firearms to a convicted criminal. And that's clearly a much better analogy, because in the case of this massive "ad fraud" scheme that was carried out by the group known as 3ve, they were using IP addresses as weapons in their scheme. Should RIPE be selling them more? Apparently, as of right now, there is no rule in place to prevent this. And as I have already noted, the company known as Universal IP Solution Corp. is still a member in good standing of the RIPE association. If you are arguing that that is in any sense justifiable, either morally, ethically, or even legally, please say so explicitly. Meanwhile, as I have tried to express, all of the armchair legal scholars on this mailing list who have postulated that RIPE would somehow be in legal jepordy if it merely ternminates a contract in accordance with the explicit terms of that contract should take a moment to google for the term "vicarious liability". In my country, there is now at least one lawsuit, progressing through the courts, against gun manufacturers for their supportive role in some of our recent mass shootings. I hope that it does not take a similar legal action against RIPE before RIPE adopts some rational policies to prevent itself from being the handmadien of online cyber-criminal enterprises and from then being reasonably and properly held to legal account for this exact supportive role on ongoing cyber-crime schemes. Regards, rfg
Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-03 New Policy Proposal (BGP Hijacking is a RIPE Policy Violation)
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. 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... 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. rgds, SL
Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-03 New Policy Proposal (BGP Hijacking is a RIPE Policy Violation)
Hi, On Mon, 1 Apr 2019, Nick Hilliard wrote: Carlos Friaças wrote on 01/04/2019 16:51: But let's also focus on two words: "punishing" -- no, that's not the goal, the goal is to close a clear gap and make people understand that hijacking is not tolerated. The explicit aim of this proposal is that if the expert panel judges that you have hijacked prefixes, you will be punished by the RIPE NCC. ...in a *persistent* way. The same way it happens with lack of payment, or delivering false/forged information to the NCC. https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/punish "Inflict a penalty or sanction on (someone) as retribution for an offence, especially a transgression of a legal or moral code." "weaponises" -- how? "weaponises" == turns the registry into something to beat people with, i.e. punishment by withdrawal of resources. It shouldn't be their decision, it should be the experts' decision. << Here you might have forgot to comment about "weaponized IXPs" :-) >> So, rather than talking about how much we want to do something about BGP hijacking, maybe we should discuss what grounds we'd have for refusing to deregister resources for things that other people in the RIPE NCC service region feel constitutes abuse, and where the line would be drawn? Let's start with political dissent and gay rights. None. But 2019-03 is exclusively about BGP hijacking. Ok, so you accept that this is the thin end of the wedge and that if the RIPE community were to accept this proposal, we would have no grounds - none - to argue against other people who propose withdrawal of resources for things that they find offensive. No. Anyone proposing anything would have to go through the PDP. For me "jurisdiction" (and lack of agreement throughout the region) would be enough, as arguments. 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. Regards, Carlos
Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-03 New Policy Proposal (BGP Hijacking is a RIPE Policy Violation)
Hi, On Mon, Apr 01, 2019 at 03:29:16PM +, Ángel González Berdasco wrote: > Gert Doering writes: > > On Sun, Mar 31, 2019 at 01:54:42PM -0700, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote: > > > To say that any such funds now being paid to RIPE are "tainted" would be a > > > rather gross understatement. > > > > > > This is the elephant in the room that none of the opponents of 2019-03 > > > wants to talk about, i.e. the rather inconvenient fact that RIPE, due > > > to its intransigent lethargy, is quite apparently doing business, even > > > as we speak, with known and well-identified cyber-criminals. > > > > So, your local supermarket is also not allowed to sell anything to > > a convicted criminal? > > > > Sorry, this is getting ridiculous. > > Actually, if someone came to your local supermarket attempting to pay > with a stolen good, it would probably be illegal for the supermarket to > knowingly perform such transaction. But the RIPE NCC isn't paid in stolen IP addresses. The argument was "they are making money out of evil things, and if the RIPE NCC is taking these moneyz, they are making themselves liable for the original crime". Of course if someone tries to pay their LIR fees with a stolen /16, the RIPE NCC should better not accept this :-) Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael Emmer Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-03 New Policy Proposal (BGP Hijacking is a RIPE Policy Violation)
Carlos Friaças wrote on 01/04/2019 16:51: But let's also focus on two words: "punishing" -- no, that's not the goal, the goal is to close a clear gap and make people understand that hijacking is not tolerated. The explicit aim of this proposal is that if the expert panel judges that you have hijacked prefixes, you will be punished by the RIPE NCC. https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/punish "Inflict a penalty or sanction on (someone) as retribution for an offence, especially a transgression of a legal or moral code." "weaponises" -- how? "weaponises" == turns the registry into something to beat people with, i.e. punishment by withdrawal of resources. So, rather than talking about how much we want to do something about BGP hijacking, maybe we should discuss what grounds we'd have for refusing to deregister resources for things that other people in the RIPE NCC service region feel constitutes abuse, and where the line would be drawn? Let's start with political dissent and gay rights. None. But 2019-03 is exclusively about BGP hijacking. Ok, so you accept that this is the thin end of the wedge and that if the RIPE community were to accept this proposal, we would have no grounds - none - to argue against other people who propose withdrawal of resources for things that they find offensive. Thank you for clarifying this. Nick
Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-03 New Policy Proposal (BGP Hijacking is a RIPE Policy Violation)
Hi, On Mon, Apr 01, 2019 at 04:01:53PM +0200, Nick Hilliard wrote: > Let's start with political dissent Now, I disagree on this. Disagreeing with the voice of reason in the anti-abuse WG should certainly be reason for public flogging, and possibly instant LIR closure. Gert Doering -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael Emmer Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-03 New Policy Proposal (BGP Hijacking is a RIPE Policy Violation)
Gert Doering wrote on 01/04/2019 13:54: Sorry, this is getting ridiculous. It's worse than that: the proposal is that the RIPE NCC weaponises its registry data and turns it into a mechanism for punishing people when they do things that other people don't like. BGP hijacking is just the start, but there is an endless list of things which are considered offensive or illegal in some or all jurisdictions in the RIPE NCC service area, e.g. spam, porn, offending political leaders, gambling, drugs, other religions, political dissent, blasphemy and so on. The RIPE NCC service area comprises around 72 countries and has over 1 billion inhabitants, and if you have a service area that large, everybody is going to be offended by something. So, rather than talking about how much we want to do something about BGP hijacking, maybe we should discuss what grounds we'd have for refusing to deregister resources for things that other people in the RIPE NCC service region feel constitutes abuse, and where the line would be drawn? Let's start with political dissent and gay rights. Nick
Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-03 New Policy Proposal (BGP Hijacking is a RIPE Policy Violation)
Hi, On Sun, Mar 31, 2019 at 01:54:42PM -0700, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote: > To say that any such funds now being paid to RIPE are "tainted" would be a > rather gross understatement. > > This is the elephant in the room that none of the opponents of 2019-03 > wants to talk about, i.e. the rather inconvenient fact that RIPE, due > to its intransigent lethargy, is quite apparently doing business, even > as we speak, with known and well-identified cyber-criminals. So, your local supermarket is also not allowed to sell anything to a convicted criminal? Sorry, this is getting ridiculous. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael Emmer Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Proposal 2019-03 BGP Hijacking
Thank you, yes, we did before. If what I wrote on the 25th of March is unclear, please let me know. To repeat, messages of support are useful and indicative, but they do not carry an argument. Thanks, Brian Co-Chair, RIPE AA-WG Brian Nisbet Service Operations Manager HEAnet CLG, Ireland's National Education and Research Network 1st Floor, 5 George's Dock, IFSC, Dublin D01 X8N7, Ireland +35316609040 brian.nis...@heanet.ie www.heanet.ie Registered in Ireland, No. 275301. CRA No. 20036270 From: anti-abuse-wg On Behalf Of Töma Gavrichenkov Sent: Saturday 30 March 2019 10:08 To: Carlos Friaças Cc: anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Proposal 2019-03 BGP Hijacking On Sat, Mar 30, 2019, 10:23 AM Carlos Friaças via anti-abuse-wg mailto:anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net>> wrote: Do supporters need to specify which parts of the proposal's text are more meaningful for them? Perhaps one of the Chairs can shed some light. They in fact have done that before. To quote: start From: Brian Nisbet mailto:brian.nis...@heanet.ie>> Date: Mon, Mar 25, 2019, 10:12 AM Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-03 New Policy Proposal (BGP Hijacking is a RIPE Policy Violation) [..] To clarify, the discussion on this proposal is a discussion, not a vote. When judging consensus the Co-Chairs will look at the points made during the discussion, not count the +1s. Of course it is useful to get a feeling for general agreement, so simple statements of support or dissent are very useful, but they are not the core of the thing. end -- Töma
