[AusNOG] Alumina vs AINS Update

[Damien Gardner Jnr]

Maybe I'm missing something, but a) How can the *General Manager* distance themselves from their company's commercial decisions? and b) I've seen no defamation here, only a recounting of events as Skeeve has seen them?  IANAL, but recounting facts is not defamation?

--DG

Damien Gardner Jnr
VK2TDG. Dip EE. GradIEAust
rendrag at rendrag.net -  http://www.rendrag.net/
--
We rode on the winds of the rising storm,
 We ran to the sounds of thunder.
We danced among the lightning bolts,
 and tore the world asunder

On 15/12/2010, at 12:56 AM, Curtis Raams wrote:

> Hello Skeeve,
> 
> Stop making false and defamatory claims about me.
> You are taking cheap shots for political and ego gains, and I do not appreciate your illegal conduct which I now consider AusNOG is permitting to take place and perhaps becoming party to.
> If you keep this up, I will not only seek to hold you liable, but also your employer.
> 
> I have never said I make ANY determination on the matter (relating to: AINS (via Curtis Raams) still maintain that they had a right to announce the resources as a recourse to a billing dispute), and I have always maintained it was not a situation I could draw a conclusion on as it was not my area of responsibility within the company, or my area of profession.
> 
> I very clearly advised the AFP that if they could show me my 'employer' was engaged in illegal activity, then I would intervene after hours (over that weekend), other than that, I was powerless to act.
> 
> You are to stop making statements to the effect of me being in some way 'in charge' of this situation your client has found itself in, and be honest about the fact that I was simply the one (and the only one) available for you and those you complained to for contact over the weekend.
> 
> As you have clearly said, it is a commerical matter. Now leave it up to your employers and my employers to sort it out as they see fit.
> But I personally reserve my rights against you if you continue to build this public perception that I have engaged in what you consider to be illegal activity, especially since I have very specifically and directly to you stated that I am in NO WAY WHATSOEVER CAPABLE OF INTERVENING AND MAKING THE DECISIONS YOU WANTED, nor more than the Pacnet engineer you spoke to could, no more than the AFP agent count, no more than APNIC could. Its time to stop this rubbish.
> 
> You may also want to be careful about what you suggest publicly has been advised to external parties (beit AFP or otherwise), especially if it is incorrect.
> Maybe you (and your supporters) need to take a serious step back and think about this. Like it or not from a technical side, why were all the people you attempted to have intervene unable to side with you? And I do not mean techs here, but those with authority? Perhaps you can think about this, and then think about why I could also not comply, no more or less than they could, and they certainly hold far more superior power than me.
> 
> This is all I will say on the matter, and my comments are without predjudice to AINS and intended only to repond to the growing instance of defamation against me on this list by Skeeve Stevens.
> I am and will remain independent of the AINS commercial team and its processes.
> 
> Thank you,
> Curtis Raams
> 
> From: ausnog-bounces at lists.ausnog.net [mailto:ausnog-bounces at lists.ausnog.net] On Behalf Of Skeeve Stevens
> Sent: Tuesday, 14 December 2010 9:25 PM
> To: ausnog at ausnog.net
> Subject: [AusNOG] Alumina vs AINS Update
> 
> Hey all,
> 
> Sorry for the lateness of the update. I'm here in Bangkok and I can only communicate with Australia for half the day due to timezones.
> 
> Yesterday at about 1pm (AEST), the routes belonging to Alumina that AINS were announcing ceased to be be so.
> 
> It is unclear to me whether AINS themselves stopped the announcements or whether Pacnet stopped them (or told them to stop) announcing the routes.
> 
> AINS (via Curtis Raams) still maintain that they had a right to announce the resources as a recourse to a billing dispute.  They maintain that they had a contract which allowed them to do this, but when requested to produce this agreement by the AFP and by Alumina, they declined to do so, and said yesterday that they couldn't find it.
> 
> I am not saying that this agreement never existed as I have no knowledge either way, but if it never did exist, then the actions of AINS were, and the AFP agree, criminal in nature.  There is ongoing legal action regarding this situation and when appropriate I will update the list due to that outcome if the results have anything interesting in them.
> 
> A few interesting things have come out of this situation that need to be addressed.
> 
>  1.  The AFP seem to be powerless to deal with this kind of situation.  They would like to be able to, but the Law Enforcement establishment moves way too slowly for the needs of situations such as these.  Also, the AFP is limited in what they're able to actually do... They can seize equipment, but they're not engineers, so the options open to them are limited.  There is clearly a need for the AFP to be able to act in domestic situations of DoS/DDoS/etc and other criminal situations.
>  2.  The situation is extremely unclear on whether Pacnet is or should be liable for this situation as even after they were informed.  Unlike AINS who claimed a legal contractual right to announce the routes, Pacnet in no way had that right to re-announce them.  This specific situation is not targeted at Pacnet, who were just paralysed by this confusing situation, but to all upstreams who may contribute to the actions of their customers.
>  3.  APNIC, while the issuing body for resources in this region, also seem powerless, apart from 'asking' politely of the perpetrator or upstream.  In this situation APNIC did ask Pacnet to cease advertising the resources of Alumina, but Pacnet essentially refused to do anything.  This is a situation that urgently needs addressing within the APNIC community and I will be consulting various parties as to the best way we can address this situation, especially since APNIC looks after the entire region, not just Australia.
>  4.  I will be requesting that APNIC setup a section on their website to provide advice to LEAs in the region.  Mainly explaining what a resource is, and what they mean, what announcements are, and who is entitled to announce them, including how to find out who owns them and what information they should rely on when someone like me requests someone to stop announcing a particular resource - as in, do I have the right.
>  5.  We (the industry) need some legal advice (Hi lawyers on the list) as to whether the claimed recourse was actually legal or not.  I think one of the appropriate industry bodies which have a code of conduct perhaps need to take up this pickle and provide some advice to ISPs or holders of resources and provide some advice.
> I am sure that the smart people on this list might be able to come up with some other areas that should be addressed.
> 
> ...Skeeve
> 
> --
> Skeeve Stevens, CEO
> eintellego Pty Ltd - The Networking Specialists
> skeeve at eintellego.net<mailto:skeeve at eintellego.net> / www.eintellego.net
> Phone: 1300 753 383, Fax: (+612) 8572 9954
> Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 / skype://skeeve
> www.linkedin.com/in/skeeve ; facebook.com/eintellego
> --
> eintellego - The Experts that the Experts call
> - Juniper - HP Networking - Cisco - Brocade - Arista - Allied Telesis
> 
> Disclaimer: Limits of Liability and Disclaimer: This message is for the named person's use only. It may contain sensitive and private proprietary or legally privileged information. You must not, directly or indirectly, use, disclose, distribute, print, or copy any part of this message if you are not the intended recipient. eintellego Pty Ltd and each legal entity in the Tefilah Pty Ltd group of companies reserve the right to monitor all e-mail communications through its networks.  Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except where the message states otherwise and the sender is authorised to state them to be the views of any such entity. Any reference to costs, fee quotations, contractual transactions and variations to contract terms is subject to separate confirmation in writing signed by an authorised representative of eintellego. Whilst all efforts are made to safeguard inbound and outbound e-mails, we cannot guarantee that attachments are virus-free or compatible with your systems and do not accept any liability in respect of viruses or computer problems experienced.
> 
> <winmail.dat>_______________________________________________
> AusNOG mailing list
> AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net
> http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ausnog.net/pipermail/ausnog/attachments/20101215/3a304d63/attachment.html>