- anti-abuse-wg - mailman.ripe.net

abuse-c policy proposal in LACNIC
by JORDI PALET MARTINEZ 17 May '18

17 May '18

Hi, As I just indicated in the meeting, I've submitted a policy proposal in LACNIC (AfriNIC as well but missed the deadline for the last meeting, and coming also to APNIC in a matter of days). As I'm planning to submit it also to this WG, I will love if the people can take a look at the actual English version for the LACNIC one in order to help to have a "better" first version. This is the LACNIC link: https://politicas.lacnic.net/politicas/detail/id/LAC-2018-5?language=en Thanks! Regards, Jordi ********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.consulintel.es The IPv6 Company This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.

1 0

Agenda Update - RIPE76 WG Meeting
by Brian Nisbet 16 May '18

16 May '18

Colleagues, I wanted to share the updated agenda for our session tomorrow. The meeting is in the Side Room at 11:00 CEST and you can attend remotely at this URL: https://ripe76.ripe.net/live/side/ A. Administrative Matters * Welcome * Scribe, Jabber, Stenography * Microphone Etiquette * Approve Minutes from RIPE 75 * Finalise agenda B. Update * B1. Working Group Chair Selection * B1. Recent List Discussion C. Policies - * C1. 2017-02 (Regular abuse-c Validation) D. Interactions - * D1. Global Abuse Community Updates - Tobias Knecht , Abusix E. Presentation - * E1. Internet Abuse by Russian LEAs, Alexander Isavnin, Internet Protection Society X. A.O.B. Z. Agenda for RIPE 77 Brian, Co-Chair, RIPE AA-WG Brian Nisbet Network 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(a)heanet.ie www.heanet.ie Registered in Ireland, No. 275301. CRA No. 20036270

1 0

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] abuse of the internet by multinationals and nation states
by Gerente de Sistemas 07 May '18

07 May '18

*INTERNET* is a PRIVATE network of networks, builded by *USA* Department of Defense, Army Forces and universities, americans and europeans. *INTERNET* uses PUBLIC PROTOCOLS to allow communications betwen people and companies. *INTERNET* is NOT a POLITICAL NETWORK, and should not be treated like a POLITICAL environment - or a digital State. One of the biggest issues on *INTERNET* is the fact email is used to transport files while *FTP* is the right protocol to transport files. And NOBODY seems to care about it. This is an immense cost to operate *INTERNET.* > > "In any case, this" invisible "exercise of power under the guise of" > secret "algorithms and" proprietary "technology is extremely harmful and a > powerful weapon in the hands of the evil organization (s). > What do you mean, "in the hands of evil organizations"? Do you consider the invasion of Islam in Europe, and the NoZones in Sweden, England, Norway as "*organizations of good*"? The answer is more regulation? > What do you mean by "more regulation"? More INTERVENTION OF THE STATE IN THE PRIVATE LIFE of the people who are using the INTERNET? But is not this exactly what Cuba, China, Russia do? Not to mention the "States of Good" - Iran, Iraq, Syria and other Muslim countries? Is the answer to look more the Chinese example? > What, exactly, in the "Chinese example" is "good" for people using the INTERNET? The answer is an Internet not free? It depends on your definition of "free". There is no free lunch, and if you do not pay a fee to use the * INTERNET,* you PAY TAX in your country to pay for the *INTERNET,* as governments pay to subsidize the existence of the *INTERNET.* How do societies and societies protect their own cultures? Your own ways of > life, your own values and preserve your own freedoms? " > The "culture" of people who "buy" the "culture" of other people do not have strength (culture) in their societies to provide their own culture for their people. Americans say "cosmos" to say sidereal space and the Russians say "OK" to say they agree. *The Voice* is a "sold" program for virtually ALL CULTURES on Earth, *... Got Talent* and *X Factor* as well. What, exactly, do you mean with countries "*losing" their cultures*?" Google is a private company. You may want to refer to the creation of a Private Monopoly, as was done by the *US* Congress with the telephone. In the Clinton administration, the same *US* Congress broke the private monopoly formerly created to protect the economic interests of the inventor, forcing the private company to be sold to become a *MARKET* in the industry, since there was no longer any justification for protecting the inventor. is this what you mean? I use google but I use more *DuckDuckGo.com*, other people can do the same, but DO NOT WANT. I use *TOR* - and google does not like you to use *TOR* and HARDS access to their computers when you use *TOR* - and I invest in *MY SECURITY*. I do not use FACEBOOK or INSTAGRAM or WHATSAPP for the same reasons: my INSECURITY and the SAFETY of those companies. I do not miss the "services" that those companies offer, where YOU ARE THE PRODUCT. And the amount of people who *"sells"* their private lives easily to those companies producing PROFIT is almost 20% of the Earth's population. You mean that companies are to blame? Would not you agree if you said that the same people who give away their private lives for the easy profit of better able people are the GUILTS of their countries and their societies LOSING THEIR CULTURES? But these people have HIGH EDUCATION and money. How would you explain this? That almost 20% of Earth's population is a terrorist? Traitors of their cultures and their homelands? There are several Search Engines <https://duckduckgo.com/?q=open+source+search+engines&t=seamonkey&ia=web> that can be used in Internet Service Providers and private companies, especially in universities and mid-level schools, including government agencies, but what you see is a public university paying Google to do the documents in their academic environment. Even the university's information technology course DOES NOT DEVELOP RESEARCH in the area of textual information retrieval. "Sphinx [image: Top 5 Open Source Search Engines - Image 5] Sphinx is an open source full text search server that is programmed with relevant search quality and integration simplicity. Sphinx allows flexible testing whereby its indexing features include full support for SBCS and UTF-8 encodings, stopword removal and optional hit position removal (hitless indexing); morphology and synonym processing through word forms dictionaries and stemmers; exceptions and blended characters; and many more. Sphinx has an easy application integration that is derived from 3 different APIs. It has a native library for many programming languages, a pluggable storage engine for MySQL and an application query that uses MySQL client library and syntax. Websites such as Craigslist, Living Social, MetaCafe and Groupon has adopted Sphinx for its searches. *Programming Language:* C++ *License: *GPLv2 and commercial *Ranking of search results:* Versatile *Indexing style:* SQL database indexing and Non-SQL storage indexing." No government agency from the countries you claim to be victims of Google (and other *IT* companies) uses, or research, retrieval of textual information in their corporate environments. And most of the societies you want to protect send their brains to compete for a job in Google and *US* *IT* companies. Is this American's FAULT? Do you misuse wrong high-tech companies working together with the government of the country that they help with taxes and give them national and global MARKET SAFETY? Which government do you think companies should help? To the government of Iran? To the government of Syria? To the government of Russia? To the government of China? Are you saying that *US* high-tech companies should pay taxes to CHINA ALSO? To be "*good*"? Are you saying that *US* *IT* companies should deliver their data encryption protocols to China? To be "*good*"? "The Internet is a global network." *INTERNET* is a NETWORK of computer networks and was created in the *USA,* and is owned by the *US* government. It only exists within the territory of the *USA.* Other nations may use it if they adhere to the protocols - which are OPEN and FREE ACCESS CODE for ALL EARTH INHABITANTS. " *Use of that global network by dominant and large tech companies to**empower single country military is evil.* " The "*bad*" is not the use of a property by the owner, but those who are not owners want to have the right of the owner without doing anything for the existence of the property. What you are saying is that you are a "*homeless*" and those who have a roof have a duty to give you the roof. You could agree that there is a need for regulation to PROTECT INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS of users of the *INTERNET,* with protocols - open like the ones in the network - to verify the correct use of the network. But this is another conversation and you do not want regulation to protect INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS, you want a Digital State to intervene in national societies for IMPOR sanctions on individuals, and companies, because at the time of regular there is no distinction between person and company.

2 1

abuse of the internet by multinationals and nation states
by ox 06 May '18

06 May '18

Hello, please may I have your thoughts, on or off list, about the evident growth in the use of the internet for abusive purposes as it relates to huge multinationals and nation states? I would like to illustrate what I am asking, with a singular example. the specific brand name should not choose to take any offense, as I could have simply replaced "Google" with Apple or with Facebook, or with Twitter, etc etc. Here the case example: =================== Factually: Google operates and dominates search and email in hundreds of countries all over the planet. of late, Google turns out to be an evil organisation that uses the world and global internet, not as an international netizen, but to power and empower a specific nation state: https://news.sky.com/story/goggle-staff-protest-against-companys-work-with-… A recent article in the NY Times suggests that Google, and all tech companies has an obligation to empower the US military as it serves the interests of American people and that such support, development and sharing with the US Government is not only expected but to be commended. From an American perspective this all makes perfect sense and is not evil at all. From a RIPE perspective (and world perspective) It is evil. Personally, I like Americans and the American people as much as I like the Chinese people, the Russians and all people from any country. But the issue is about the Internet. The Internet is a global network. Use of that global network by dominant and large tech companies to empower a single country military is evil. Further and to add to this: Google(insert name of other multinational here) also acts as a "Police" by using their search engine and email services as a weapon against both individual people as well as other companies. There is no trial, there is no court, there is no public opinion even. There is simply the biased application of convoluted and often contradictory, sometimes psychotic, "policies" These multinationals have become so powerful that they are able to digitally target individual people and in such a sublime fashion that it is not even obvious to most individuals that they are "targets". The very same "policies" that have now been amended to comply with GDPR, but if one actually reads and apply logic to the new policies, it is clear that compliance with the GDPR will not be adequate to prevent the abuse of power that multinational tech companies regularly exercise under the guise of their own "policies" So, one type of abuse is identity data, tracking and general data including fake news, the other type of abuse is to specifically give weight to negative or to specifically exclude data or information from feeds and results. Currently this type of abuse is not regulated or even discussed much at all. Anyway, this "invisible" exercise of power under the guise of "secret" algorithms and "proprietary" tech is extremely damaging and a powerful weapon in the hands of evil organisation(s) Is the answer more regulation? Is the answer to look harder at the Chinese example? Is the answer a non free Internet? How does society and different societies protect their own cultures, their own ways of life, their own values and preserve their own freedoms? The abuse of the Internet by large corporations and nations states for the purposes of information warfare (and war) is an abuse issue for a RR wg to dicuss... Andre

1 0

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] abuse of the internet by multinationals and nation states
by Name 05 May '18

05 May '18

3 2

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] abuse of the internet by multinationals and nation states
by Name 05 May '18

05 May '18

7 7

abuse of the internet by multinationals and nation states
by ox 05 May '18

05 May '18

Hello, please may I have your thoughts, on or off list, about the evident growth in the use of the internet for abusive purposes as it relates to huge multinationals and nation states? I would like to illustrate what I am asking, with a singular example. the specific brand name should not choose to take any offense, as I could have simply replaced "Google" with Apple or with Facebook, or with Twitter, etc etc. Here the case example: =================== Factually: Google operates and dominates search and email in hundreds of countries all over the planet. of late, Google turns out to be an evil organisation that uses the world and global internet, not as an international netizen, but to power and empower a specific nation state: https://news.sky.com/story/goggle-staff-protest-against-companys-work-with-… A recent article in the NY Times suggests that Google, and all tech companies has an obligation to empower the US military as it serves the interests of American people and that such support, development and sharing with the US Government is not only expected but to be commended. From an American perspective this all makes perfect sense and is not evil at all. From a RIPE perspective (and world perspective) It is evil. Personally, I like Americans and the American people as much as I like the Chinese people, the Russians and all people from any country. But the issue is about the Internet. The Internet is a global network. Use of that global network by dominant and large tech companies to empower a single country military is evil. Further and to add to this: Google(insert name of other multinational here) also acts as a "Police" by using their search engine and email services as a weapon against both individual people as well as other companies. There is no trial, there is no court, there is no public opinion even. There is simply the biased application of convoluted and often contradictory, sometimes psychotic, "policies" These multinationals have become so powerful that they are able to digitally target individual people and in such a sublime fashion that it is not even obvious to most individuals that they are "targets". The very same "policies" that have now been amended to comply with GDPR, but if one actually reads and apply logic to the new policies, it is clear that compliance with the GDPR will not be adequate to prevent the abuse of power that multinational tech companies regularly exercise under the guise of their own "policies" So, one type of abuse is identity data, tracking and general data including fake news, the other type of abuse is to specifically give weight to negative or to specifically exclude data or information from feeds and results. Currently this type of abuse is not regulated or even discussed much at all. Anyway, this "invisible" exercise of power under the guise of "secret" algorithms and "proprietary" tech is extremely damaging and a powerful weapon in the hands of evil organisation(s) Is the answer more regulation? Is the answer to look harder at the Chinese example? Is the answer a non free Internet? How does society and different societies protect their own cultures, their own ways of life, their own values and preserve their own freedoms? The abuse of the Internet by large corporations and nations states for the purposes of information warfare (and war) is an abuse issue for a RR wg to dicuss... Andre

1 0

Last Call on Policy 2017-02 - Moving to Concluding Phase
by Brian Nisbet 27 Apr '18

27 Apr '18

Colleagues, Once again, thank you for your input and discussion regarding proposal 2017-02. The Chairs have reviewed the various points raised and we feel that moving to the Concluding Phase of the PDP is the appropriate decision at this point. We believe that there is quite some support for the proposal and that the objections have either been dealt with or are not directly related to the substance of the proposal. This, to us, looks like rough consensus. Since the we moved to the Review Phase on the 18th of January we had quite a few different inputs, which is great. A couple of these inputs were between the two parts of the Review Phase, but the opinions have been noted. - There were quite a few straight-forward expressions of support from Sebastian Benoit, Thomas Hungenberg, Janos Zasako, Michele Neylon, Christoffer Dam Hansen, Wolfgang Tremmel, Name <phishing(a)storey.xxx>, Angel Gonzalez Berdasco, Sander Steffan and Karl-Josef Ziegler - Chris Hills supported the proposal but did ask about a potential escalation mechanism in case of an email bouncing back. At the moment this is provided by https://www.ripe.net/contact-form/report-incorrect-contact-information-in-t… - Jordi Palet Martinez, Andreas Worbs, Arash Naderpour, ox (and others) did express a wish for a more extensive set of checks including required human interaction, but they acknowledged general support for the proposal even without this. - Erik Bais expressed some concerns in relation to a potential liability to the NCC. The NCC did not state any risk of a change of liability in their impact analysis and this has been confirmed after further conversation with them. - Sascha Luck, Nick Hilliard and Malcolm Hutty expressed objections and a lack of support due to the possible implications of an LIR failing to enter appropriate abuse contacts in the DB. They, generally, felt the risk of resources being reclaimed due to this was disproportionate. In response to this it was clarified that no new procedure was being created by 2017-02. Firstly It should be noted that the methods explained by the NCC in their Impact Analysis are binding on them and would only be changed by agreement at a future point in time. As clarified during the discussion, an incorrect abuse contact would trigger attempts by the NCC to contact the LIR to resolve the issue. Following this, it would be actions of the resource holder that could lead to the activation of the closure procedure - such as refusing to provide correct abuse contact information or remaining unresponsive over a longer period. It is felt by the Co-Chairs that objections to the relevant procedures (Closure of Members, Deregistration of Internet Resources and Legacy Internet Resources) should be raised in the with the Executive Board and/or the relevant RIPE Working Group and are not relevant objections to proposal 2017-02. - Alexander Isavnin agreed with the disproportionality and also felt that the proposal would not do enough to stop abuse. Given the NCC's input that they feel the proposal will greatly aid the ARC process and the generally incremental nature of process change, this objection is not felt sufficient to disrupt the rough consensus. - Gert Doering remained steadfastly neutral throughout. - Troy Mursch did not clearly express his opinion one way or the other during the Review Phase, but the Co-Chairs have interpreted his comments as broadly in support of the proposal. - Richard Clayton's comments in regards to the usefulness of occasional checks for abuse addresses have also been interpreted as being broadly in support of the proposal. - Rob Evans and Luis E. Muñoz commented, but did not clearly support or oppose the proposal Please let the WG know if you have any last comments on this proposal. Thanks, Brian Co-Chair, RIPE AA-WG Brian Nisbet Network 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(a)heanet.ie www.heanet.ie Registered in Ireland, No. 275301. CRA No. 20036270

2 1

2017-02 Last Call for Comments (Regular abuse-c Validation)
by Marco Schmidt 26 Apr '18

26 Apr '18

Dear colleagues, Policy proposal 2017-02, "Regular abuse-c Validation", is now in Concluding Phase. The goal of this proposal is to give the RIPE NCC a mandate to regularly validate "abuse-mailbox:" information and to follow up in cases where the attribute is deemed to be incorrect. The WG Chairs have declared that rough consensus has been reached and the proposal will now move to Last Call. As per the RIPE Policy Development Process (PDP), the purpose of this four week Concluding Phase is to give an opportunity to present well-justified objections for those who missed the previous two phases and wish to oppose the proposal. Any objection must be made by 25 May 2018 and must be supported by an explanation. If no substantive objections are raised by the end of Last Call, the proposal will complete the PDP and will be evaluated by the WG Chairs for consensus. You can find the full proposal at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2017-02 Please e-mail any final comments about this proposal to <anti-abuse-wg(a)ripe.net> before 25 May 2018. Regards, Marco Schmidt Policy Officer RIPE NCC Sent via RIPE Forum -- https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/forum

1 0

Draft Agenda - RIPE 76
by Brian Nisbet 17 Apr '18

17 Apr '18

Colleagues, Here is the draft agenda for our meeting in Marseille. The meeting will take place on Thursday 17th May at 11:00 CEST in the Side Room on Level G. We still have a small amount of time left on the agenda for any other matters that people wish to raise. A. Administrative Matters * Welcome * Scribe, Jabber, Stenography * Microphone Etiquette * Approve Minutes from RIPE 75 * Finalise agenda B. Update * B1. Working Group Chair Selection * B1. Recent List Discussion C. Policies - * C1. 2017-02 (Regular abuse-c Validation) D. Interactions - * D1. Global Abuse Community Updates - Tobias Knecht E. Presentation - * E1. X. A.O.B. Z. Agenda for RIPE 77 Brian Nisbet Network 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(a)heanet.ie www.heanet.ie Registered in Ireland, No. 275301. CRA No. 20036270

1 0