[anti-abuse-wg] 2019-03 New Policy Proposal (BGP Hijacking is a RIPE Policy Violation)
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-03 New Policy Proposal (BGP Hijacking is a RIPE Policy Violation)
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-03 New Policy Proposal (BGP Hijacking is a RIPE Policy Violation)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Sascha Luck [ml]
aawg at c4inet.net
Thu Mar 21 00:48:06 CET 2019
On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 11:04:53PM +0000, Carlos Friaas wrote: >>I don't think that word means what you think it does. "criminal" >>has a very precise legal meaning. If you think that advertisement >>of numbers is a criminal act, please provide jurisdiction, act >>and article under which it is. > >Three words: "dutch", "court", "order" -- that's jurisdiction over >RIPE NCC. To amplify: my comment centers on the use of the term "criminal" for someone who commits $something_i_don't_like_but_isn't_actually_illegal. Somewhat dangerous terrain in Europe because slander, ironically, *is* a criminal offence in some jurisdictions. I should propbably excuse Ronald because to a, first-amendment-protected, American the concept must seem ludicrous. Although I hear Trump wants to change that... sncr, SL > > >(...) >>You must have read a different verion of this proposal than what >>I have read. The proposal calls for a "finding" to be made and a >>report submitted. Any consequences are not even within the >>mandate of RIPE policy. > >And ratified (you may have missed that bit!) > >I also don't see any immediate or automatic consequence(s). > >However, if the policy was indeed violated, then the door is open for >subsequent action(s) -- which can take its due time as already >established. This proposal doesn't even try to touch that, and i hope >this is completely clear by now. > > > >>>I would just like it noted, for the record, that RIPE is actually not a >>>"monopoly provider", and that the four other RIRs might reasonably take >>>umbrage at the very suggestion. >> >>And, like so often, you are wrong here too. > >Allow me to disagree (again). > > >>Each RIR is a monopoly provider for its own service region. Some >>RIRs even mandate that the resources they allocate and assign must >>not be >>used outside their service region. > >Have you heard about legacy resources? Do you know they can be subject >to transfers? > >Additionally, please note you wrote "Some RIRs", not "All RIRs" :-) > >Question: if that mandate is not comploed, is it enough for the NCC to >terminate the SSA? > > >Regards, >Carlos > > >>rgds, >>Sascha Luck >>
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-03 New Policy Proposal (BGP Hijacking is a RIPE Policy Violation)
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-03 New Policy Proposal (BGP Hijacking is a RIPE Policy Violation)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]