Serge,

there's been extensive debate on AAWG over the years about the principles behind your additional suggestions below, but very little consensus. If sanctioning is added to the charter of a new security-wg, this lack of consensus is likely to continue, and the only outcome will be that the WG will be distracted from other productive output. I understand why you might want it in there, but punitive action is not within the remit of the RIPE NCC. Similarly on point 2, advocacy is important, but requirement / enforcement is out of scope for both the RIPE Community and RIPE NCC.

Nick

Serge Droz via anti-abuse-wg wrote on 10/05/2024 07:21:

Hi Leo

It's more about sharpening the focus. I colored this red below. I feel eventually the RIPE NCC must adapt stronger policies to punish non-action or disregard of action. I think it would be better if this WG comes up with such policies which the RIPE NCC can then adopt (or not) rather than the RIPE NCC having to react to external pressure, e.g. from policy makers, in particular the EU. I'm sure one can formulate this much better. I firmly believe, that there is no way around stronger regulation, and I'd much rather see this coming from this community than form the outside. The regulators i see and work with are increasingly irritated and react with totally inadequate demands, which I wont reproduce here.

1. Identifying and analyzing emerging security threats and vulnerabilities affecting Internet infrastructure.
   
2. Collaborating with stakeholders, in particular the RIPE community, to develop and advocate and implement best practices, guidelines, and standards for securing Internet resources.
3. Facilitating information sharing and cooperation among network operators, law enforcement, and relevant entities to mitigate security risks.
4. Providing education, training, and outreach initiatives to raise awareness of security issues and promote best practices adoption.
5. Develop policies recommendations to the RIPE NCC that help enforcing good behavior and sanction disregard for faccepted security standards. This includes the definition of acceptable minimal standards.
   

Best regards

Serge

On 09.05.24 21:39, Leo Vegoda wrote:

Hi Serge,

On Thu, 9 May 2024 at 11:41, Serge Droz via anti-abuse-wg
<anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net> wrote:

Hi Leo

We can only recommend the community, obviously.

I agree.

So these aare the best
practices

We can recommend that RIPE NCC changes its rules and procedures to
address certain issues.

As a WG, if I'm correct we have no other power.

Based on thisl, I don't understand what's missing from the draft text.
Maybe you could suggest some specific edits?

Kind regards,

Leo

-- 
Dr. Serge Droz
Member, FIRST Board of Directors 
https://www.first.org