On Tue, 19 Mar 2019, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote: +1. -Hank
In message <E1h6E3W-00051F-BF@www-apps-1.ripe.net>, Marco Schmidt <mschmidt@ripe.net> wrote:
You can find the full proposal at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2019-03
Anyway who knows the first thing about me will know that I'm strongly in favor of the general thrust of this proposal, generally speaking. In fact I would only want to quibble with a few of the finer points of the implementation details.
With respect to those, I'd like to see there be a bit more formality (in the specification of the adhjudication procedures), and a bit less (mandated) fooling around before any particular "deliberate" hijacker can be formally and finally kicked to the curb.
I have a lot of thoughts about how all this could be and should be structured and operated, but I don't want to bring in too much of that fine detail at this point in the discussion for fear that it might obscure the more fundamental question on the table, which is simply whether or not this is a good idea gnerally. (I personally think that it is.) So for now I'll just say that I think this proposal is on the Right Track generally, and that I think that it can be and should be revised and evolved to make all of the adjuducation procedures transparent, faster, and yet still unarguably fair to those accused.
Mostly, I personally would like to see the time frames specified in the current draft tightened up (i.e. reduced) generally, and the entire process streamlined somewhat. These are not capital murder cases we are talking about after all!
Specifically, I think that it should be adequate to have there be a period of *no more than* two weeks, during which the case is argued, by both the accused and (perhaps) by an NCC staff member presenting the case for the prosecution, all in front (via email) of a smallish set of adjuducators (perhaps five, chosen by random lots) after which there should be a period of *no more than* one week of deliberation, and then a final judgement and report. And lastly, after that, I think that it would be more than sufficient if there were only one avenue of appeal, which would be to the RIPE Board, which would be required to decide any appeal within *no more than* four weeks.
In practice, I think that even these time frames will, in the end, be seen to have been excessively and pointlessly generous in virtually all actual cases. I am thinking back on all of the cases I have seen of deliberate hijacks, and there have been many of those. None of those cases was really very ambiguous at all, and none of them would have required more than a day or two, once all of the facts were gathered, to persuade any reasonable and knowledgable observer of the truth of what had happened and/or its clearly deliberate nature. Nor would any of those who had been caught red handed pulling this kind of nonsense ever be at all likely to appeal from the obvious facts. But due proces is never something to be dispensed with lightly, and we should not do so in this instance. Thus, I agree that it *is* necessary to have a formal and fair process, including a right of appeal. I just hope that it can be moved along at a rather more rapid pace (even in the worst case) than what the proposal at hand is currently calling for.
Regards, rfg