>> Michel Py wrote: >> That being said, this thing about policy violation is ridiculous. The way I >> see it, it's a >> contract violation. Policy has nothing to do with it. Now where it gets >> hairy is in a >> cross-RIR situation, where the alleged hijacked prefix is in contract with >> another RIR. >> I see it as a contract violation, therefore I oppose making it a policy >> violation.
> Hank Nussbacher wrote : > So if you consider it a contract violation, what remedy do you recommend? None coming from ARIN. This thing is futile, IMHO. What could ARIN do ? A fine ? invalidating the alleged hijacker ARIN membership and reclaiming legit prefixes that the member may have ? Taking their ASN back ? Sue them ? Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't see any of this happening. Without radical changes to ARIN's mission and scope, this is moot. > Ronald F. Guilmette wrote : > Here in our area, we have an entity that builds and maintains most of the > roads. Unfortunatly, the Internet is global. An ARIN prefix could be hijacked in any part of the world, or vice-versa. There is no "our area". > And as I have noted above, the same "governance" entity that paints the lines > on the road should also be the one enforcing those lines and those rules. > Anything else is just unworkable, as history has already amply proven. If that is what you want, you need to give ARIN enforcement powers and the resources to do so that are not currently there. Michel. _______________________________________________ ARIN-PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
