[anti-abuse-wg] 2019-03 and over-reach
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-03 and over-reach
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-03 and over-reach
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
ac
ac at main.me
Sat Mar 23 09:53:49 CET 2019
ugh, english. I do not mean external as in outside I meant external as in not allocated. for example: complaint received about 147g8oobra912cx47.com versus a HIJACKING complaint received about apple.com my argument would be that; as 147Goobra912cX.com is not allocated, any complaints about such a resource is outside the scope of any administrative authority - and ianal, but, some of what Nick Hilliard said, may apply. Same as abuse BY a resource, when what Nick Hilliard said, may also apply. The main point is that; Because: "hijacking" of a domain name (or any resource) is a direct administrative issue (this is factual - as per my previous post) BUT abuse BY a domain name (or any resource) is not necessarily an administrative issue at all (this is debatable/opinion) - as you said "some" TLD responds some do not...and RIPE NCC is not the Internet Police.... So, anyway, as 2019-03 deals with hijacking, this entire over reach argument is factually not relevant at all and, more so: 2019-03 not proceeding would be counter to the ethical administration of resources, a dereliction of responsibility and a breach of trust implied in any such administration (as well as administrative authority) On Sat, 23 Mar 2019 08:20:01 +0000 Suresh Ramasubramanian <ops.lists at gmail.com> wrote: > They either find out for themselves or someone else points it out to > them. In either case their responsibility continues if what you say > holds good > > --srs > > ________________________________ > From: anti-abuse-wg <anti-abuse-wg-bounces at ripe.net> on behalf of ac > <ac at main.me> Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2019 1:44 PM > To: anti-abuse-wg at ripe.net > Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-03 and over-reach > > > some of what the wg discusses are opinions and some things are > scientific facts. > > scientific facts may change as environments and other variables > change, but currently it is so that; > > there is NO TLD registry that will allow the ongoing random hijacking > of domain names (under that TLD of course) > > as, this would mean that the TLD does not need to exist at all and/or > it will not have any trust/value. > > RIPE NCC though, is factually a resource administrative authority. > > As such, it does need to administer resources and an integral part of > that resource administration is the core responsibility implied by > such administration itself and the balance of exercising such > authority with the implied and direct responsibility of any such > administration. > > Factually, the authority to allocate (or not) is administrative. > > I think (my opinion) is that the confusion arises due to whether a > resource (whether it be a domain name, ip number, etc) is allocated, > or not. When resources are allocated the administrative responsibility > is not degraded, in fact a very strong argument could be made that the > inverse is true: Allocated resources increases the level of > administrative authority, responsibility and all of the administration > aspects themselves. > > Now, TLD (or RIPE NCC) managing **"external"** complaints about direct > abuse, is, imho, outside the scope of an administrative authority and > would be the scenario Nick Hilliard refers to. Then again, this is my > opinion, so I may be completely wrong (or not) :) > > On Sat, 23 Mar 2019 07:27:40 +0000 > Suresh Ramasubramanian <ops.lists at gmail.com> wrote: > > > There's also the interesting comparison of how some TLD registries - > > many of them - act on canceling spam and phish domains while others > > go to every extreme not to do so. > > > > --srs > > > > ________________________________ > > From: anti-abuse-wg <anti-abuse-wg-bounces at ripe.net> on behalf of ac > > <ac at main.me> Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2019 11:16 AM > > To: anti-abuse-wg at ripe.net > > Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-03 and over-reach > > > > On Fri, 22 Mar 2019 17:13:20 +0000 > > Nick Hilliard <nick at foobar.org> wrote: > > > Regarding over-reach, the RIPE NCC was instituted as a numbering > > > registry and as a supporting organisation for the RIPE Community, > > > whose terms of reference are described in the RIPE-1 document. The > > > terms of reference make it clear that the purpose of the RIPE > > > Community and the RIPE NCC is internet co-ordination and - > > > pointedly > > > - not enforcement. Proposal 2019-03 goes well outside the scope of > > > what the RIPE Community and the RIPE NCC were constituted to do, > > > and I do not believe that the Anti Abuse working group has the > > > authority to override this. > > > > > the wg is not overriding anything. 2019-03 is about removing > > resources, in much the same way as same resources would have been > > removed for payment. (RIPE NCC accounts person would "judge" that > > there was no payment and resources would be affected) > > > > Just because there is a decision it does not mean that such a > > decision > > > > is "law enforcement" or judicial. > > > > 2019-03 is administrative > > > > and not legal/law/judicial > > > > > The second point relates to the long term consequences of the > > > proposal. If the RIPE Community were to pass this policy, then it > > > would direct the RIPE NCC to act as both a judiciary and policing > > > agency for internet abuse. Judgement and enforcement of behaviour > > > are the competence of national governments, courts and law > > > > No. You are saying the same thing, though eloquently, in a different > > way and trying to link it to some future potential hijacking by gov > > of RIR. > > > > It is not much of a decision that RIPE NCC has to make either as: > > > > 1. There was hijacking > > > > OR > > > > 2. There was no hijacking > > > > Whether it was accidental, ongoing for long period of time and all > > the other technical and scientific facts, this may require some > > sort of interpretation of facts. > > > > But, not whether it actually happened or not. > > > > > > > > But, this is not how to handle the problem of BGP hijacking. Even > > > if it had the slightest possibility of making any difference at a > > > technical level (which it won't), the proposal would set the RIPE > > > Community and the RIPE NCC down a road which I believe would be > > > extremely unwise to take from a legal and political point of view, > > > and which would be difficult, if not impossible to manoeuver out > > > of. > > ianal, NCC legal will surely evaluate the legal aspects, but > > practically every new shell company that has to deal with compliance > > and other issues is just another layer in the onion. > > > > > > > > > > > >
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-03 and over-reach
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-03 and over-reach
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]