Hi,
For me it's important to have in mind that "affected people" are not only
legitimate resource owners that see their resources hijacked by someone,
*but also* everyone that receives an hijacked announcement, possibly
causing *their* packets to go towards wrong places...
Regards,
Carlos
On Thu, 2 May 2019, Fernando Frediani wrote:
On 02/05/2019 13:38, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via ARIN-PPML wrote:
Having specific wording will *immediately* allow courts and judicial
experts, to confirm that it was against the rules of the association. Done.
Exactly ! I think that's a very import point to take in mind and focus about
this discussion.
As it was already said in another message I understand the authors, if this
doesn't reach consensus, are fine to either have a simpler proposal stating
this clearly so future affected people can have better guarantees to scale these
cases out of the RIR like to the court. The only thing that doesn't seem
reasonable to have is nothing.
Fernando
_______________________________________________
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.
