Hi, On Thu, 18 Apr 2019, Töma Gavrichenkov wrote:
On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 1:39 AM Carlos Friaças via anti-abuse-wg <anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net> wrote:
And how will a dutch court determine a wrong decision was made? by getting a different set of experts...?
E.g. by judging on an evidence found later, and with that evidence making a decision that original set of experts did their job poorly.
Experts (on any given subject matter) can be wrong, if they look only at a specific dataset. If data is not available on the year a crime was commited, and it surfaces only 5 years later, i wouldn't say the experts did a poor job. They might have done a good job with the data available at the time.
NCC has arbiters for quite a while. Who's responsible for their mistakes?
Curiously or not, that's where all of this started: my first take was to think that arbiters were the solution, but *several* people pointed out the current pool of RIPE arbiters was formed for a different purpose and some of them might not have the skills (or the will...) to look into hijacking cases.
It shouldn't be the RIPE NCC, if the RIPE NCC is just following the defined policy.
Honestly, I think it's the opposite. If the NCC terminates a membership agreement, it should be liable for all the consequences of a wrong decision no matter how exactly the decision is made and what arbiters/experts/oracles/grandmoms were asked for a definitive advice.
OK, but that is relative to *any* termination reason, be it immediate or on a specific timescale (see RIPE-716). I would like to know how many dutch court cases were filed to the date against RIPE NCC about wrongful membership agreement termination. Thanks, Carlos ps: we've missed grandmoms on version 2.0's text. sorry about that :-))
-- Töma