[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 ]
Lu Heng
h.lu at anytimechinese.com
Sat Mar 23 11:39:37 CET 2019
On Sat, Mar 23, 2019 at 18:35 JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via anti-abuse-wg < anti-abuse-wg at ripe.net> wrote: > Hi Lu, > > > > El 23/3/19 11:30, "anti-abuse-wg en nombre de Lu Heng" < > anti-abuse-wg-bounces at ripe.net en nombre de h.lu at anytimechinese.com> > escribió: > > > > When you stealing electricity the electricity company will not cut your > electricity at home but report you to the policy. > > > > Depends on the contract. In my country, they are able to do, even at the > same time all those: > > 1. Cut your electricity > 2. Claim the case to the police (criminal case) > 3. Claim the case to the courts for the damages (civil case) > > No, if you stealing electricity at random building, your home electricity will not be cut off, I don’t see any contract of electric company of any country would do that. > > No one saying stealing is ok, but no one agrees electricity company should > have policing power. > > > > Sometimes the stealing is not from the electricity company, but from a > neighbors. Bad guys don’t care if they are damaging other people. > I don’t see the relevence to the discussion here. Doesn’t matter who they steal to, it’s a police matter not a electricity company matter. > > > On Sat, Mar 23, 2019 at 18:27 ac <ac at main.me> wrote: > > On Sat, 23 Mar 2019 18:04:22 +0800 > Lu Heng <h.lu at anytimechinese.com> wrote: > > > > It’s very much like electricity company tell you if you do something > > bad we will cut you off and stop supply electricity.and yes, they > > will cut you if you stop paying them, but that doesn’t mean they can > > they also cut if you cheat by stealing electricity. > > you not talk about stealing but you and Nick talk about how use > electricity. > > use any way you like, ripe not internet police, but you no steal, okay? > > > make themselve self juridical court in any bad thing happen in this > > world. > > > not every bad thing, just administrative duty to say stealing is stealing. > > stealing not the same as using electricity to fry naughty neighbor in > chair. > > stealing is when you no pay for electricity you use to fry neighbor, see? > > you use for anything bad, this your business, ripe not judicial court, > administrative authority. > > but you no hijack, okay? > > > Internet, or registry, are starting if not already is, become part of > > base infrastructure of the society, but that does not give us any > > rights in the society to become the supreme court of the society, > > just like your water company or electricity company won’t judge you > > for what you use water or electricity for. > > > > > > > > On Sat, Mar 23, 2019 at 16:54 ac <ac at main.me> wrote: > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > -- > > Kind regards. > > Lu > > -- > > -- > Kind regards. > Lu > > ********************************************** > IPv4 is over > Are you ready for the new Internet ? > http://www.theipv6company.com > The IPv6 Company > > This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or > confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of > the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized > disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this > information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly > prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the > intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or > use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including > attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal > offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this > communication and delete it. > > -- -- Kind regards. Lu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/anti-abuse-wg/attachments/20190323/45f89888/attachment.html>
- 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 ]