In message <CAFV686dzExAoZs16zZb=767BdMy-MY=7HvmbNdO92qh0Q8ir6Q@mail.gmail.com>,
Jacob Slater <jacob@rezero.org> wrote:

>If a NCC member is actively and willfully, after having been notified and
>given ample opportunity to resolve the issue, engaged in widespread
>hijacking such that RIR/NIR members have complained about their ability to
>use their own resources, yes.

I don't see why that last part should even be a considration.

Who cares whether or not some RIR members has complained about "their
inability to use their own resources"?  Theft is theft.

{re: ALS Scan v. Cloudflare}
>That case has nothing at all to do with the theft OF IP ADDRESSES, and thus,
>> it is rather entirely irrelevant to this discussion.
>>
>The case does deal with the slippery slope argument in that it demonstrates
>at least one instance of modern law where removing content from an online
>service (at all) resulted in an opening for legal liability.

Wait.  So are you suggestng that the discontinuance of Cloudflare caching
for some pirate porn sites -created- a lgeal liability for those sites
where none had existed before?  If so, then you're going to have to explain
that to me very very slowly.

>... Action should be well
>backed with evidence.

We agree.

>Cloudflare's blog post on the subject has comments on the matter. One of
>their staff members is known for stating "Is this the day the Internet
>dies?",

Yes, well, as far as Cloudflare is concerned, -anything- that stands in the
way of them doing absolutely anything, and whatever the f**k they want,
MUST necessarily be the End Of The World As We Know It.  It would not be
wise for anyone to take any of Cloudflare's ludicrous hyperbole seriously,
especially while they are, one the one hand, -selling- DDoS protection,
even as they are also -providing- DDoS protection to DDoS gerenation
services... as they routinely do, and as they routinely claim it is their
God-given right to do (e.g. www.0x-booter.pw).

>... a reference to the fact that they acknowledge they (at the time)
>were about to take content offline for what were non-required reasons.

I, for one, would like to know just what in the hell Cloudflare considers
to be "required reasons" for them ceasing their HTTP reverse proxy service
to some particular FQDN.  As far as I have been able to tell, over the
years, Cloudflare has been very insistant that there are -no- reasons that
would -ever- require them to cease providing services, even to terrorist
and child porn sites... at least nothing shourt of an outright court order.

But this is all a digression from the issue here, which is just 2019-03,
a proposal that only deals with the use and misuse of Internet number
resources, PERIOD.

>Getting depeered by transits, losing IX memberships, and having gear seized
>by authorities all seem like potential disincentives. Having a bunch of
>NCC-allocated IP space doesn't matter when you are unable to use it.

I refer you again to the unescapable fact that, even as we speak, the
company called Universal IP solution Corp. is still a RIPE member in good
standing.  It is lying low, for now, but could be back in business and
undertaking new hijacks -tomorrow-, all with the air of perfect legitimacy
which is conferred upon it by its ongoing formal RIPE membership.


Regards,
rfg