Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-03 and over-reach
On Mon, Mar 25, 2019 at 12:44:47PM +0200, ac wrote:
I frequently read someone saying "RIPE is not the Internet Police" (even I have said that a few times myself) but the hard truth is that any RIR has a duty to exercise administrative authority.
Only as far as it pertains to the registration of allocated/assigned resources. All membership of the RIPE NCC since its foundation was entered into with the understanding that the NCC is a *registry* not an *enforcer* and does not regulate the operation or behaviour of member networks. 2019-03 attempts to change this by plugging into an ill-defined concept of "policy". This is perhaps a fundamental issue, as there has been "mission creep" from "address-policy" (the better term is "resource policy") into all sorts of other aspects of network operations. Unfortunately, RIPE and the NCC were founded in much more cooperative days and so it was omitted to clearly define the "limits of authority", perhaps because it was not seen as necessary back then. I therefore argue that it is maybe time to have a discussion on what exactly RIPE and the NCC should be and what, if any, limits on their administrative power there should be. I hope, though, that everyone can at least agree that *this* is *not* the forum for that discussion. rgds, SL
Finding the balance where this duty is an over-reach, as per the subject line of this hijacked thread, is an important discussion that I believe this wg should have sometime as this relates directly to abuse also...
and, similarly, arguing that because Afrinic etc does not do this or does not do that, is hardly any great argument either, many interesting things, angles and points in these 2019-03 discussions and threads :)
Andre
On Mon, 25 Mar 2019 12:24:13 +0000 "Sascha Luck [ml]" <aawg@c4inet.net> wrote:
On Mon, Mar 25, 2019 at 12:44:47PM +0200, ac wrote:
I frequently read someone saying "RIPE is not the Internet Police" (even I have said that a few times myself) but the hard truth is that any RIR has a duty to exercise administrative authority.
Only as far as it pertains to the registration of allocated/assigned resources. All membership of the RIPE NCC since its foundation was entered into with the understanding that the NCC is a *registry* not an *enforcer* and does not regulate the operation or behaviour of member networks. <snip>
exactly my point. for the purposes of discussing administrative authority and/or force, as it relates to abuse, we need to set aside 2019-03 specifically and focus on the core principles of administrative authority. do you agree that any registry has an administrative authority? any registry is an *enforcer* by default as the very act of registration implies force. (as, for example, a resource is assigned to you and not to me) how registration happens (the process), the criteria for registration, the criteria for de-registration, these are all examples of administrative authority. IF RIPE (or any RIR) should de-register/remove a resource registration it is acting administratively It is not forcing anyone to do anything, it is doing exactly that which it is supposed to be doing: Being a Registry.
Sascha, all,
-----Original Message----- From: Sascha Luck [ml] <aawg@c4inet.net> Sent: Monday 25 March 2019 12:24
I therefore argue that it is maybe time to have a discussion on what exactly RIPE and the NCC should be and what, if any, limits on their administrative power there should be. I hope, though, that everyone can at least agree that *this* is *not* the forum for that discussion.
To confirm, the Anti-Abuse WG is absolutely not the right forum for that discussion. 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.nisbet@heanet.ie www.heanet.ie Registered in Ireland, No. 275301. CRA No. 20036270
On Mon, 25 Mar 2019 13:17:07 +0000 Brian Nisbet <brian.nisbet@heanet.ie> wrote:
Sascha, all,
-----Original Message----- From: Sascha Luck [ml] <aawg@c4inet.net> Sent: Monday 25 March 2019 12:24 I therefore argue that it is maybe time to have a discussion on what exactly RIPE and the NCC should be and what, if any, limits on their administrative power there should be. I hope, though, that everyone can at least agree that *this* is *not* the forum for that discussion.
To confirm, the Anti-Abuse WG is absolutely not the right forum for that discussion.
that administrative authority exists, is also not a "discussion" thing, it is a "it already exists" thing. in fact, even on this mailing list (also a resource), there exists rules and there exists administrative authority to remove people from this list. and, people are indeed blocked/banned/removed from this mailing list. So, just to be quite clear: Administrative authority exists and is used regularly and applied to all sorts of resources, all the time. Also, imo, the boundaries of administrative authority as it applies to RIPE is also more of a "legal" thing than a "discussion" thing. Andre
In message <20190325122413.GQ99066@cilantro.c4inet.net>, "Sascha Luck [ml]" <aawg@c4inet.net> wrote:
Unfortunately, RIPE and the NCC were founded in much more cooperative days and so it was omitted to clearly define the "limits of authority", perhaps because it was not seen as necessary back then.
I am pleased, at long last, to find that there is at least one thing that Sasha Luck and I agree on, and he has nicely summarized it above.
I therefore argue that it is maybe time to have a discussion on what exactly RIPE and the NCC should be and what, if any, limits on their administrative power there should be.
Arguably, that has been the subtext of this discussion on 2019-03.
I hope, though, that everyone can at least agree that *this* is *not* the forum for that discussion.
On that point, we will have to continue to agree to disagree. Regards, rfg
participants (4)
-
ac -
Brian Nisbet -
Ronald F. Guilmette -
Sascha Luck [ml]