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

[Joe Provo]

[speaking for myself]

On Fri, May 03, 2019 at 10:05:15AM -0400, Andrew Bagrin wrote:
> I'm curious why do people not want to let ARIN try to start getting
> involved to help resolve the issue of hijacking?

When I voted this out of scope for the NPRM, I said "I wish
we were an enforcement entity, but we're not". Please do not
conflate complaints on the grounds of the PDP and NRPM scope,
ARIN's historical role, or ARIN's current mission, or ARIN's
scope of operations with "support" of hijacking.  

But just because we've been down this road several times 
before, doesn't mean it isn't work seeing how the world has
changed or if there isn't a new path to test.  But as I've 
repeatedly stated, my opinion is merely that this (PDP) is 
the wrong lever to pull to acheive the goal.  

The correct one is the ACSP, which is used *all the time* 
for handling changes on the operational practices of ARIN. 
If folks chiming in here are unfamiliar, they should visit 

	https://www.arin.net/participate/community/acsp/

and browse the many open and closed suggestions and consultations
which reflect the non-registry-policy concerns, suggestsions
and interests of the ARIN community.

That said, I think the mechanics propsed are deeply flawed
especially the entire "consultants to handle cases" stuff.
I'd recommend a less strict formulation of the whole thing 
for an ACSP submission.

Cheers,

Joe


-- 
Posted from my personal account - see X-Disclaimer header.
Joe Provo / Gweep / Earthling