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

I support 2019-03
by FONG Eddie (RIC-HK) 03 Apr '19

03 Apr '19

I support 2019-03 Eddie Fong CYBER SPECIALIST | Richemont Asia Pacific Ltd ________________________________ 909 Cheung Sha Wan Road | Kowloon | Hong Kong (direct) +85225322912 (email) eddie-ht.fong(a)richemont.com<mailto:eddie-ht.fong@richemont.com> (c) 2019 Richemont Asia Pacific Ltd. All Rights Reserved The information contained in this e-mail message is confidential - please do not cross-post. This communication is intended for the use of the addressee(s) only. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, reliance, disclosure, distribution or copying of this communication may be prohibited by law and might constitute a breach of confidence. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and delete it and all copies (including attachments) from your system.

1 0

I support 2019-03
by HUEN Jason (RIC-HK) 03 Apr '19

03 Apr '19

I support 2019-03 (c) 2019 Richemont Asia Pacific Ltd. All Rights Reserved The information contained in this e-mail message is confidential - please do not cross-post. This communication is intended for the use of the addressee(s) only. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, reliance, disclosure, distribution or copying of this communication may be prohibited by law and might constitute a breach of confidence. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and delete it and all copies (including attachments) from your system.

1 0

I support 2019-03
by furio ercolessi 03 Apr '19

03 Apr '19

Me too. Furio Ercolessi

1 0

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] I support 2019-03
by Fi Shing 02 Apr '19

02 Apr '19

1 0

I support 2019-03
by MATASCI Andrea (RIC-CH) 02 Apr '19

02 Apr '19

I support 2019-03 © 2019 Richemont International SA. All Rights Reserved The information contained in this e-mail message is confidential - please do not cross-post. This communication is intended for the use of the addressee(s) only. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, reliance, disclosure, distribution or copying of this communication may be prohibited by law and might constitute a breach of confidence. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and delete it and all copies (including attachments) from your system.

1 0

2019-03
by FERREIRA DE OLIVEIRA Edgar (RIC-CH) 02 Apr '19

02 Apr '19

I support 2019-03 Regards, Edgar Oliveira © 2019 Richemont International SA. All Rights Reserved The information contained in this e-mail message is confidential - please do not cross-post. This communication is intended for the use of the addressee(s) only. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, reliance, disclosure, distribution or copying of this communication may be prohibited by law and might constitute a breach of confidence. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and delete it and all copies (including attachments) from your system.

1 0

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-03 New Policy Proposal (BGP Hijacking is a RIPE Policy Violation)
by Ángel González Berdasco 02 Apr '19

02 Apr '19

Let's use a less loaded analogy than a gun store :-) Suppose we are dealing with a logistics company that uses stolen lorries/trucks. May their use of stolen vehicles potentially affect their carrier license? Note that, even if after many months of processes the agreement with the rir was terminated and the AS taken back, still that does not preclude the company from having ip addresses or having access to the internet. I expect the next draft not to rely on a single expert, but a panel of 3 experts (plus then the appealing phase). Would that solve your concerns? > Blocking content distribution methods is > effectively blocking the content itself. If your > newspaper was unable to print and distribute > their news because their electricity had been > shut off (for anything outside of nonpayment), > it would still be considered censorship. No. The newspaper may pay its electricity punctually, yet be required to have its electrical power shut off. A good example of that would be non-compliance with the local electricity regulation, which may range from an install so bad that could cause a fire to simply having an old meter which doesn't support real-time reading Should the action against the above-mentioned logistics company differ if it was used for delivery by a newspaper? You raise a good point that the allowance of reports by the general public could lead to attacks against 'unpopular' entities (such as a certain political party) by means of fake reports. However, given that it has to be based on technical facts, I'm not sure if that's already enough or there should be some additional speedy path in the proposal for them to be discarded (and where to put the line?). Ángel

1 0

Proposal 2019-03 BGP Hijacking
by Vitor Leitao 01 Apr '19

01 Apr '19

I would like to manifest my support to the proposal 2019-03. Rgds, Vitor Leitao

8 8

Dogs
by Ronald F. Guilmette 01 Apr '19

01 Apr '19

I feel compelled to offer my apologies to the list membership for my posting here about a week ago in which I made retorical use of the word "dogpiles" as in "cleaning up our own dogpiles". It was certainly not my intent to offend anyone with my usual and rather cavalier use of language. Nontheless, following that post, a number of dog owners on the list wrote to me privately to express thier disgust and outrage at what appeared to them to have been personalised and selective attacks on either them or their pets or both. As it was pointed out to me, in no uncertain terms, dogs are far from the only type of pets that routinely manufacture piles of what are generally considered to be non-recyclable waste by-products. Cats, lizards, parakeets, and even ring-tailed lemurs also routinely gift to thier environments copious quantities of effluent. Given these facts, some members here righfully objected to my singling out of dogs for either special note or special derision. I do apologize to all concerned, and I promise that in future I will make every reasonable attempt to be species-neutral in my use of language, whenever possible, especially now that I am aware of the issue, and of the specific offense that some on the list can and do take to my manner of speech. To paraphrase, I will amend my speech lest I mar my fortunes. Regards, rfg P.S. It certainly does seem evident to me that the best way that I could avoid getting into trouble like this in the future would be for me to never say anything. I do believe, based on some evidence, that at least a few of the members here would be quite alright with that solution.

1 0

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-03 and over-reach
by Lu Heng 31 Mar '19

31 Mar '19

On Sat, Mar 23, 2019 at 19:11 ac <ac(a)main.me> wrote: > On Sat, 23 Mar 2019 18:57:43 +0800 > Lu Heng <h.lu(a)anytimechinese.com> wrote: > > It’a very much because of internet has become part of unitiy to my > > point of view. > > > > Any policy that says “if you do bad thing we taking your IP number > > back” is very much like “if you do bad thing we cut your > > water/electricity off”. > > > the point is: you can do what you like with "your ip", if it is "your > ip" but part of what makes it "your ip" is an advertisement that is > an assignment by an administrative power and the same > administrative power comes with responsibility and a whole bunch > of unavoidable and undetachable other things.... > > so, we can keep going around in chicken and egg circles, but I think my > mind is made up now... thank you for that :) > > I am +1 for adoption of 2019-03 as it stands... > Sure, so does my mind, I am -1 for the adoption. Yes you do have responsibility to things you processe(in this case the rights to use the IP), but doesn’t give you rights to policing other people when your procession get damaged, I still firmly believe that rights belong to the police and judges. And for the record, it’s in my short term interest to have that policy as we do suffer from time to time hijackings, and I made presentation in this working group how more half million of our IP get hijacked for half a year. But for the long term stability of the registry, or the internet as a whole, in which in all my interest to protect, I really like to see community avoid policy like that. > Andre > > > > -- -- Kind regards. Lu

3 3