Hi Nick
It's not venting. It's stating the facts: All you write are reasons why
we should not change things. Alternatives could be
1. Check how the others do and copy it
or
2. Instead of saying X is not workable, you could say It seems X is no
workable, but we could try Y to solve this. But the second part never
comes.
Best
Serge
On 31/07/2026 19:17, Nick Hilliard wrote:
Serge Droz via Security-wg wrote on 31/07/2026 16:36:
But he is right
every time we start this, the same people fine a gazzilion reasons
not to do anything.
Serge,
the various proposals which have been put forward over the years
haven't failed because "the same people fine a gazzilion reasons not
to do anything". They've failed because the proposals were unworkable,
or would cause harm in other areas, or were not going to fix the
problem at hand, or a combination of all three.
Rather than venting at people, it would be more productive to deal
with the issues that have been brought up, of which there's no
shortage - and in all honesty many of them are really serious and
fundamental structural problems.
For example, how would the RIPE NCC deal with the sort of liability
issues that would come up if they deregistered an organisation's
address space because a downstream last-mile provider had customers
whose TVs and IOT devices were persistently partaking in botnets and
were being used to execute criminal damage against someone else? What
legal basis would the RIPE NCC have for doing this in the Netherlands
vs the UK vs Russia vs Saudi Arabia? What splash damage would happen?
What would the RIPE NCC's obligations and policies be in terms of
deciding whether some form of networking abuse was serious enough to
merit deregistration? Would these be legally sound in all of the
jurisdictions where the RIPE NCC operates. If they were brought to
court, how would the RIPE NCC tell a judge that their behaviour would
be justified within a particular legal system, and that it wasn't
anti-competitive behaviour from a monopoly provider (i.e. criminal
behaviour in many jurisdictions). How does the RIPE NCC handle legal
differences? e.g. someone in one jurisdiction does something which is
entirely legal in one, but a very serious crime in another? Think:
blasphemy (capital punishment in several RIPE NCC service area
countries, but absolutely acceptable in plenty of others), pornography
(e.g.with age of consent differences in different jurisdictions), etc.
How does the RIPE NCC handle resist scope creep? You've created a
mechanism for enforcing policy, so how do you stop that from being
used by people pushing for their own interests? How should the RIPE
NCC react, for example, if someone's religious organisation were to
start covertly pushing the edge on abuse to cover things that they
would consider abuse, but which were specific to their religion? Or
same for political?
It's unhelpful to repeatedly dismiss those who disagree with you as
nay-sayers or that the problem is that people won't get out of their
"comfort zone". What's needed is to actually deal with the substance
of the concerns that are brought up, i.e. create cogent, legally sound
and workable proposals for dealing with these and the other problems
which have been raised over the years.
Nick
-----
To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options,
please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/security-wg.ripe.net/
As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the email matching your subscription before you can change your settings.
More details at: https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/
