[arin-ppml] [EXT] Re: Open Petition for ARIN-prop-266: BGP Hijacking is an ARIN Policy Violation

[Ronald F. Guilmette]

In message <CAAAwwbU6WkeWGNwgHy_jNNMLy=nEKHZCpu_-r+bFtd7jcFbOVQ at mail.gmail.com>
Jimmy Hess <mysidia at gmail.com> wrote:

>On Mon, Apr 29, 2019 at 7:14 PM Ronald F. Guilmette
><rfg at tristatelogic.com> wrote:
>> Where I am and where you are, there is really only one single
>> entity that has complete responsiblity for both, and it's called the State
>> of California government.  It isn't always pretty, and there are abudant
>
>How about....  The internet is private property, with agreed upon
>co-ordination at the boundaries of property, and the roads inside
>California are not?     What about at the border of California, where a
>street or highway crosses into another state;  does California draw the
>lines and issue tickets into the neighboring state;    What if the center line
>doesn't match up on the part of the road on opposite sides of the border?

It's an intersting set of questions, and one that I cannot provide full
answers to, in part because I lack the time, and also in part because I
lack the knowledge necessary to do so.  Some of this is delving into the
legal topic of extra-territorality which can be quite complex.

It *is* certaintly the case that some laws in some jurisdictions *are*
applied extra-territorally, and I, for one, would hope that if a driver
with a California license were repeatedly found to have violated the
rules of the road in other states, that he or she would have their
California driver's license revoked.

But that all has to do with -statutes- more that private contracts.

In the case of private contracts, I am not persuaded that it would be
either entirely improper or entirely impermissible for Avis car rental
contracts to include a clause which prohibits one party, the renter,
from, say, smoking in *any* rental car, whether it be provided by Avis
or Hertz or anybody else, possibly including a penalty of some kind
if the said objectional action is in fact engaged in by the (Avis) renter.
And I think that this is at least somewhat analogous to what is being
proposed here.

>There is no role, for example,  for a government or anyone else to
>come tell ATT, Verizon, Level3, etc, what they are and are not allowed
>to put or have in their routing tables

I agree that this appears to be the case AT PRESENT.  We still do live
in the "wild west".  The question on the table is whether or not a
majority wishes to retain that status quo, or move forward towards an
era in which all participants in the ARIN allocation system do in fact
have, and pledge to accept, some additional specific responsibility in
order to help foster the general welfare and the smooth continued
operation of the global Internet.

It is clear that few here are at all eager to accept any of this new-fangled
resposibility.  I personally feel however that it is at least remotely
possible that a majority may come around to the view that the new bargain
on offer is worth the cost.  There are indeed costs, in the form of new
responsibilities (specifically, not to engage in hijacking) but there
are also benefits in the form of a heightened level of freedom from
problematic hijacks generally.  It is up to the members to decide if
this tradeoff is worth it to their respective organizations.

>ARIN Not only has no ability to enforce these agreements;
>not being a court of law; the Interconnection agreements
>are private,  and not really the business of a number registry.

I think that we have covered this.  ARIN -can- have an AUP if it wishes
to do so.  And it would be neither novel nor unique if it now adopted
one, even after more than two decades of operating without one.  Virtually
ever other kind of online service alread has a contractual AUP, and one
that is enforced not so much by the complex, expensive, and time consuming
appeal to the courts and to civil litigation, but just simply by terminating
the memberships of those found to have violated the AUP.

Clearly, this longstanding mantra and objection, that ARIN "is not the
police" misses the mark and is misplaced and irrelevant in this context.
Nobody is asking for ARIN to become the police, so all references to
criminal enforcement in the context of a discussion of the ARIN AUP, or
the present lack thereof, are demonstratably silly.  ARIN can have and
indeed does have the power, authority, and ability to simply kick people
out of this voluntary club, based on whatever rules of conduct ARIN, as
a private association, elects to adopt.  Is there any real dispute on
this point?


Regards,
rfg