On Wed, 1 May 2019, Joe Provo wrote:
(...)
By way of analogy, ARIN paints the lines on the roads and strongly encourages
everyone to stay in their own lane and to try to drive at all times on the
[snip]
Nope; ARIN is a registry. More appropriate analogies would be a
registry of deed or title that manage policy regarding subdividing
the same. When there's a conflict regarding such registrations in
the Real World (in our region), you go to law enforcement and courts.
Shockingly, that's what's encouraged in our cases.
Hi,
I have some trouble with the "registry of deed or title" analogy, because
those (as i understand it) don't have a distribution function, nor are
membership-based.
Sorry to have to break the bad news to you all, but The Cowboy Era of the
Internet is over. It's time to make a few simple rules and all agree to
live by them. Because we're not all wild ass cowboys anymore. We're
shopkeepers and farmers and bankers and dentists.
[snip]
To follow your previous line of argument, here you are actually
wanting to *revert* from the current state of engagement actual
law enforcement to private outsourcing. From this perticular
never-cowboy, I see the formation of a lynch mob, temeritas in
extremis.
Obviously this is not how i see it.
What i see is that country-based authorities don't have (almost) any
window to act. However, the RIRs (jointly) have.
And even regarding legacy holders, while resources can't be revoked, the
RIR could potentially stop providing services to "rogue" legacy holders --
i was involved in the RIPE proposal to allow services to legacy holders,
some years ago. And of course, regarding IPv6, the RIRs (jointly) have
"full authority".
If someone wants to explain to me how this very minimalist request is totally
unreasonable, I'm all ears.
This proposal conflates the PDP work by the community on the NRPM
with ARIN's legal work on [L]RSA. IMO, the proper approach would
be to file through ACSP, since it specifically exists to take
"suggestion[s] regarding an existing or potential ARIN service
or practice" (https://account.arin.net/public/acsp). Very simply,
suggesting the ARIN BoT update the RSA with very specific language
regarding hijacking and calling out specific actions or remedies.
I'm not sure i got all of it :-)
Do you think that will work regarding already signed RSAs...?
That at least express the desired norms in contract, despite the
reality that most perps will not be under that contract.
You are saying a new rule is bad because will not catch all or the
majority of cases...? I mostly worry about cases where hijacks are part of
a well defined business model.
Can we perhaps agree that a "rogue RIR member" could be more harmful
to the RIR system than a "rogue non-RIR member"...?
Regards,
Carlos
Cheers!
Joe
--
Posted from my personal account - see X-Disclaimer header.
Joe Provo / Gweep / Earthling
_______________________________________________
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.
_______________________________________________
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.
