[arin-ppml] [EXT] Re: Open Petition for ARIN-prop-266: BGP Hijacking is an ARIN Policy Violation
JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
jordi.palet at consulintel.es
Thu May 2 13:19:47 EDT 2019
El 2/5/19 19:03, "John Curran" <jcurran at arin.net> escribió:
On 2 May 2019, at 12:38 PM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via ARIN-PPML <arin-ppml at arin.net> wrote:
In any members association, the association is legitimated to act against members that don’t follow the rules.
It is not a matter of “police”, nobody is asking the RIR to be the Internet police as some folks stated in this discussion (here or in other lists). Saying that is basically diverting the discussion to a different place: We can’t do anything, so we ask the governments to legislate over Internet because we aren’t capable of self-regulate.
It is a matter of 1) the rights of members and 2) the obligations of the association with the members.
Even if you don’t have 2) above, members can scale it to LEA/courts. However, not having those rights explicitly worded out, may preclude LEA, courts, etc., to take actions.
Having specific wording will *immediately* allow courts and judicial experts, to confirm that it was against the rules of the association. Done.
Again, it may differ a bit in the laws from country to country (I doubt it will be too much anyway). I’m speaking from what I know, not being a lawyer, but with some experience in dealing with courts and cases.
ARIN Members have rights and responsibilities which are specified by ARIN’s Bylaws and the ARIN Registration Services Agreement (ARIN RSA); none of them presently speak to the matter of routing of IP address blocks.
I think this is part of the reason it has been declared out-of-scope. The misunderstanding about “speaking of routing”. Is not the case, we are speaking about members should respect the exclusive right of use of other members. Hijacking with BGP is only the mean to break that right.
ARIN administers the ARIN registry - this is done in accordance with ARIN Number Resource Policy Manual (NRPM). Both ARIN Members and customers have been issued address space in the ARIN registry, and this issuance results in a limited set of rights to specific entries therein. While ARIN can indeed have policies whose compliance is necessary to maintain those rights, we have historically been quite careful to have policies whose requirements are germane to the actual operation of registry, and rather
If a member is abusing the rights of other members, by hijacking their resources, then the registry information is not valid, at least during the time this event is happening.
than any orthogonal purposes. To the extent that number resource policy creates obligations in areas not directly related to registry administration, it would be very prudent for ARIN to update the ARIN Bylaws and/or RSA to make these additional obligations quite clear those being made subject to same.
And I probably agree with that, and that’s why I think it should be better done in policy.
President and CEO
American Registry for Internet Numbers
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
The IPv6 Company
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the ARIN-PPML