[anti-abuse-wg] Allocation of number resources
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Allocation of number resources
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Allocation of number resources
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Gert Doering
gert at space.net
Thu Feb 7 16:18:51 CET 2013
Hi, On Thu, Feb 07, 2013 at 08:06:41PM +0530, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > On Thursday, February 7, 2013, Gert Doering wrote: > > > I think we perfectly agree that *criminals* should have taken their > > address space away, and that's what the NCC does. Now, "criminals" - and > > this is where we know to disagree - are not folks that send e-mails that > > other folks do not like, but folks where an instrument of the law has > > decided "they are criminals" (LEOs or courts). > > Ah, so the difference between spammers and other forms of online criminals > like, say, botmasters Just an example, which makes it fairly obvious that a "criminal" to some is not a "criminal" to another. I neither like spammers nor botmasters, but the legal system in their country might make a difference. > I do however put it to you that there are plenty of email marketers who > acquire IP space under their own business names, without having to create > an endless series of shell companies to acquire outsize IP allocations. > > Does that mean RIPE NCC might want to, for example, have the dutch > regulator that has a remit on antispam, OPTA, take a stand in this matter, > if you are that concerned with penalizing genuine criminals rather than > "people who send email that I don't like"? An interesting idea. The stance of the RIPE NCC is clear: if a judge decides that someone is a criminal, they are. Otherwise, they are not, and there is no lever to take away their addresses just by someone calling them a criminal. This is all documented, and the link to the RIPE NCC LIR closure document has been posted here by Athina before. This can be changed, of course - the RIPE NCC operates under a policy framework set by its constituency. Unfortunately, this constituency has been completely unable to agree on a definition of "abuse" (in a "checklist" sense: someone has to take this definition, apply it to a certain case, and come to a clear conclusion). So that's what we have: criminal by law, lying to the NCC as far as LIR registration details go, or no reason to withdraw IP address allocations. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 306 bytes Desc: not available URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/anti-abuse-wg/attachments/20130207/eaf570fd/attachment.sig>
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Allocation of number resources
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Allocation of number resources
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]