[anti-abuse-wg] On +1s and Policy Awareness AND Astro... something...

Comments inline
=Marco


> On Thu, Apr 04, 2019 at 04:52:32PM +0100, CSIRT.UMINHO Marco Teixeira wrote:
>>While I speak for myself, I might incur the risk of representing a lot of the
>>so-called "Astroturfers?!". While some accuse (please don't take it personally,
>>it's just clarification) the newcomers of being voiceless, I must say that I
>>have been, with great effort, refraining from going into a long discourse on a
>>list where I am new. That should not be understood as a sign of "spamming" a
>>vetting process, but as a sign of respect for all of you, long-standing members
>>of RIPE, guardians of our IP addresses, one of the building blocks of the
>>Internet :-)
> 
> I know of forums where "the n00b" is expected to shut up and
> listen, but this is not one of them. At least I have never
> noticed that newcomers weren't welcomed - and as I stated before,
> I personally would like to see more and different voices here -
> and no, not just those who agree with me although I hope some
> will...

It's not a "n00b" issue, for me, it's Netiquete.

> 
> So don't be afraid to speak up if you've something to say!
> 

I just did :)

>>As one last thought, again IMHO, I believe BGP Hijacking is one of the most
>>pressing issues, menacing the Internet resiliency, and it must be dealt with.
>>In the same manner, we apply AUP's to our users, it's RIPE responsibility, to
>>clearly state, it is not acceptable, and it will have consequences... Raising
>>the risk for companies is the only way we tip the balance of "Loss vs Earning",
>>and hopefully eradicate bad actors, or hopefully even stopping them right at
>>their business plans.
> 
> 1) The RIPE NCC is not the provider of "AUP" for the entire
> Internet or even the Internet of the Service Region. I understand
> that some would *like* it to be, but that is not what the members
> are paying it for.

Never said so. But it does provide a service that is beeing abused! And you can't really start to takle that if you don't have policy in place.

> 2) If anyone needs to be "eradicated", I'd prefer that to be
> determined by a judge and, preferably, a jury. NOT some
> neighbourhood watch curtain-twitcher with the help of a monopoly
> service provider.

I believe this argument of yours has been heavilly rebated already so i won't get into lenghty conter-argument. Just to say that, by your line of thinking, we should disolve RIPE and RIPE-NCC and reclaim a piece of IPv4. If anyone doesn't like it, let them sue.