They had a fiduciary duty not to hand out whole /14s of v4 space to snowshoe spammers set up as eastern european LIRs not too long back They would now as well if such duty wasn't abdicated each time The duty doesn't magically go away of course even if it is abdicated and denied --srs ________________________________ From: anti-abuse-wg <anti-abuse-wg-bounces@ripe.net> on behalf of Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org> Sent: Friday, April 19, 2019 8:16 PM To: Carlos Friaças Cc: Gert Doering; anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-03 New Policy Proposal (BGP Hijacking is a RIPE Policy Violation) Carlos Friaças via anti-abuse-wg wrote on 19/04/2019 15:03:
Would you find reasonable to have the rule/policy in place say for 2 or 3 years, and then evaluate its impact/efectiveness...?
No. In principle, the proposal is completely broken, antithetical to the RIPE NCC's obligations of being an address registry and Randy was right to point out that it is a proposal for a kangaroo court. We don't need to make the mistake of testing it out to make sure. It will not have any material impact on hijacking; there are better ways of handling hijacking and the proposal will have a wide variety of serious but unintended side effects, some of which have been raised on this mailing list. And it's unimplementable - the board of the RIPE NCC would have a fiduciary duty to refuse to implement it. Nick