Re: [sig-policy] Forwarded reply from Gordon Bader
Sure you can hold Sr management responsible directly via a well
crafted contract. I have myself been held to such a contract
on a number of occasions. Now it may be very difficult to get
any Sr. Management to agree to very strong contract terms, but than
again you also may consider not allocating that company any IP
addresses unless they do.
GB wrote:
> Jeff,
>
> Its very difficult to hold senior management directly responsible
> for the
> implementation of a companies' policy - unless it's something like murder.
> Holding senior management directly responsible for policies of routing dark
> space addresses is not exactly a felony any place in the world. However,
> holding the company responsible is possible, given the right environment.
> I do not know if you can levy fines, they refuse to pay, it goes to
> civil court
> and they say, where is the authority? Especially, when you target
> individual
> members of senior management, personally.
>
> That is why, since the companies recognize that they need to go to
> an ISP
> or an RIR for their address space, thus they implicitly recognize the
> ISP and
> RIR's right to grant address space, that can be used in court. This, I
> believe
> is the only way, so far, that I see this working. If in order to make an
> impact, a permanent loss needs to be demonstrated, then so be it.
> But, everyone would need to re-route and not to or through the company.
> I still think that it would only need to be done once or twice at the most
> and everyone would fall in to line. Nothing like expensive capital
> sitting there
> idle and upset customers taking their business else where. That translates
> into lost revenue, lost careers, and lost jobs. The targeted company
> should sit up and take notice.
>
> If this were to happen to, pick a company - any company, AOL for
> example,
> their senior management who decided to let dark space routing would pay the
> price with loss of jobs, stock options and the rest. Termination for cause.
> Basically the same effect, different route.
>
> Also, I would suspect that notification from an RIR like APNIC to
> the 5 largest stockholders and the members of the Board of Directors along
> with letters to senior management specifying the problem and detailing
> what will occur if they do not comply, would have an effect. Especially
> by indicating that they would be essentially forcibly removed from the
> business.
>
> If that were to not work, public notification to their end customers
> that they stand to be cut off from the rest of the Internet due to the
> actions of their ISP or carrier, should also have the desired effect,
> especially if it is also published that the company officers and
> Board of Directors failed to take action. I also think that it could
> be easily be explained by saying - the company has essentially
> stolen IP addresses (by officially recognizing and routing them)
> for use by people sending out SPAM. That is a simple enough
> explanation to the general public and they will understand that.
> If enough customers desert the company and go elsewhere, the
> company should start to comply with cleaning up their routing
> tables.
>
> Regards,
> Gordon
>
> Jeff Williams wrote:
>
> >Gordon and all,
> >
> >GB wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >>Jeff and all,
> >>
> >> The primary intent of the policy proposal is not the reassignment of
> >>address space. The intent is to
> >>remove the address space from carriers that provide routing for dark
> >>address space.
> >>
> >>
> >
> > Agreed. However the "teeth" is such a policy are a bit weak unless the
> >penalty fits the infraction. Temporarily reassigning of the address space
> >has no permanent effect on the infraction. Hence a short term loss in such
> >revenue to that infraction is minimal and may be a write off on their
> >business operations expenses on in their taxes. In addition passing
> >on those costs due to their own errant activities will likely be passed
> >on to their existing customers, much along the practice of ATT of the
> >past and present, for example.
> >
> >
> >
> >> Not for a minute
> >>do I expect that ATT or MCI or Tumbleweed ISP to permanently loose their
> >>assigned address space
> >>for eternity. I would expect that after a fixed number of warnings that
> >>a loss would indeed occur and with
> >>loss, some economic pain would come, while they clean up their routing
> >>tables so as to regain their
> >>IP space allotment.
> >>
> >>
> >
> > Not good enough as I outlined in brief above. For instance our members
> >excluding myself and perhaps 15 others have been boycotting ATT wireless
> >as well as local telephone service for more than a year now at a estimated
> >cost to ATT for $8m/month with no change in their policy to date. So no,
> >what is needed is severe fines to the management of such ISP's to be levied
> >on a day to day basis until they can show clearly a change in both policy
> >AND practice.
> >
> >
> >
> >> I would think that after a few days to a few weeks
> >>of no traffic - read no revenue,
> >>that they could come back on line and be much more proactive about not
> >>routing dark space .
> >>
> >>
> >
> > Nice dream, but no cigar...
> >
> >
> >
> >>Do I
> >>think for a minute that ATT would loose their allotment and never regain
> >>it. No and their law department
> >>would be working overtime. However, with a loss, I believe that the
> >>rest of the carriers would understand
> >>that their actions would subject their IP allocation to withdrawal
> >>also. The loss of revenue should be a
> >>large motivation for change.
> >>
> >>
> >
> > If such a loss of revenue is directed properly and precisely as well as
> >stair stepped for multiple infractions to include fines on each and every
> >member of Sr. Management, than yes it would be a large motivation.
> >However what you seem to be suggesting is far too weak...
> >
> >
> >
> >> I think that a public indication that the carrier/ISP lost its IP
> >>space and thus its customers loosing
> >>their Internet access, would certainly put pressure on the carrier/ISP
> >>to clean up its act and stay clean.
> >>I think that the Internet end users, being buried in SPAM would
> >>understand that their very own ISP
> >>was a large part of the problem and thus being sent to the woodshed.
> >>
> >>
> >
> > This, as you propose it is wishful thinking. No you have to hold the
> >Sr.Managment directly responsible and do so by removing some of
> >their personnel financial burden from them and make multiple infractions
> >in a stair step upwards to larger and larger fines on each and every
> >one of them to gain the proper result.
> >
> >
> >
> >>Thanks,
> >>Gordon
> >>
> >>Jeff Williams wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>Tim and all,
> >>>
> >>>Thanks for the clarification regarding this policy. However it seems obvious
> >>>that reassigning address space under such conditions would cause even
> >>>greater confusion regarding routing table accuracy. Hence it would seem
> >>>more than obvious that such a policy is not only unwise, it is troublesome
> >>>and disruptive unnecessarily.
> >>>
> >>>Tim Jones wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Dear Gordon and others,
> >>>>
> >>>>You may be interested to know that APNIC does have an internal procedure whereby "bogon" lists are periodically monitored.
> >>>>
> >>>>When an instance of APNIC unallocated address space being announced is detected, a "cease and desist" order as you put it, is sent to the announcing ASN, and also upstreams providing transit.
> >>>>
> >>>>As well as requesting that the announcements cease immediately, these notices point out that this address space may be allocated to a third party at any time with obvious consequences for routing.
> >>>>
> >>>>This procedure is handled by APNIC hostmasters, who can be contacted at helpdesk at apnic dot net if you have any queries regarding this procedure.
> >>>>
> >>>>Regards,
> >>>>
> >>>>Tim.
> >>>>--
> >>>>____________________________________________________________________
> >>>>
> >>>>Tim Jones Internet Resource Analyst <tim at apnic dot net>
> >>>>Asia Pacific Network Information Centre phone: +61 7 3858 3100
> >>>>http://www.apnic.net fax: +61 7 3858 3199
> >>>>Helpdesk phone: +61 7 3858 3188
> >>>>Helpdesk Requests <helpdesk at apnic dot net>
> >>>>
> >>>> Please send Internet Resource Requests to <hostmaster at apnic dot net>
> >>>>_____________________________________________________________________
> >>>>APNIC 18
> >>>>Nadi, Fiji, 31 August-3 September 2004
> >>>>http://www.apnic.net/meetings/18
> >>>>------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>>
> >>>>On Tue, 17 Aug 2004, GB wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>Hi Jeff,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Thank you very much for publishing the additional information. The
> >>>>>3 week period I referred to was just that one example that I had at hand
> >>>>>and did not want to cite anything longer because I did not have a
> >>>>>concrete example, just in case I was asked to provide additional
> >>>>>documentation. I also wanted to give the carriers the "benefit of
> >>>>>doubt" that they try to do a reasonable job at table maintenance.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> In all honesty, I submitted the proposal to generate some thought
> >>>>>within the community on the problem and possible solutions. I do
> >>>>>realize that the various local legalities (local to the ISPs and various
> >>>>>carriers) as well as the previously cited international and trade
> >>>>>concerns create a very difficult landscape for such a proposal as this
> >>>>>to have any traction at all, especially with the drastic economic impact
> >>>>>that it carries. Coupling the various legalities, trade, economic
> >>>>>realities together, you wind up with a nearly insurmountable problem,
> >>>>>especially for a proposal that is rather simple and drastic in nature.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Given all of this, I ask the community, how else other than
> >>>>>sanctions that carry drastic economic consequences will such large
> >>>>>carriers (as well as smaller ISPs) essentially be forced to police
> >>>>>themselves? Has the servicing of dark space become a "cost of doing
> >>>>>business", and if so, what happens when it's growth creates a situation
> >>>>>that cannot be ignored? Does the community just legitimize the practice
> >>>>>and go forward? SPAM traffic now consumes well over 60% of email
> >>>>>traffic. Will we have a "controlled" area of IP space that co-exists at
> >>>>>some level with "uncontrolled" space - an extension of what we have
> >>>>>now? What happens when a new allocation is made that takes away
> >>>>>someone's use of dark space that they have been "using" for a
> >>>>>substantial period of time. Will they claim legal ownership under
> >>>>>something similar to real estate's "Adverse Possession"?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I would also like to ask something that I touched on before. Has
> >>>>>APNIC considered a test in that they would officially request that XYZ
> >>>>>(i.e., ATT, MSN, MCI, AOL, etc.) to return it's property (the
> >>>>>unallocated IP address space). Essentially, by routing a dark space
> >>>>>address, the service in question, is denying APNIC the control of it's
> >>>>>property that it needs back under it's control for authorized legal
> >>>>>allocation. A cease and desist order for lack of a better description.
> >>>>>It might be an interesting attempt. I would think that say ATT for
> >>>>>example, would have a difficult time denying APNIC's request to return
> >>>>>(stop routing a dark space address), when its own IP address allocation
> >>>>>has been derived from an RIR. What recourse would APNIC have if such a
> >>>>>request were either ignored or refused outright?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>With regards,
> >>>>>Gordon
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >
> >Regards,
> >
> >--
> >Jeffrey A. Williams
> >Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 134k members/stakeholders strong!)
> >"Be precise in the use of words and expect precision from others" -
> > Pierre Abelard
> >
> >"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B;
> >liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by
> >P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."
> >United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]
> >===============================================================
> >Updated 1/26/04
> >CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security
> >IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC.
> >E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix dot netcom dot com
> > Registered Email addr with the USPS
> >Contact Number: 214-244-4827
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 134k members/stakeholders strong!)
"Be precise in the use of words and expect precision from others" -
Pierre Abelard
"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B;
liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by
P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."
United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]
===============================================================
Updated 1/26/04
CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security
IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix dot netcom dot com
Registered Email addr with the USPS
Contact Number: 214-244-4827