[anti-abuse-wg] anti-abuse-wg Digest, Vol 17, Issue 11

Karl-Josef,

On Sunday, 2013-01-20 12:55:09 +0100, 
Karl-Josef Ziegler <kjz at gmx.net> wrote:
> > Thinking about it, just in the last day or two I've realized that
> > RIPE, ARIN, IANA, ICANN, and all such authorities are in many ways
> > quite analogous to our Federal Reserve here in the United States. In
> > both cases, the entities have much authority and are widely
> > perceived as having charters that somehow commit them to pursuit of
> > the public good.  But in both cases, the reality is rather
> > different... these entities are in fact merely commercial
> > associations of business interests that are pledged, if not by law
> > then by contract, to never reveal even a smidgeon of their
> > commercial member's dirty laundry to any "outsider", and their
> > iron-clad commitment to this goal always takes precedence over any
> > other consideration.
> 
> I agree. The main goal of these organisations for me seems to be not
> protecting public goods but protecting the commercial interests of
> their members. So they aren't nonprofit organizations?

My take on it is that there are basically two kinds of nonprofit
organizations:

1. Organizations that vaccinate orphans, dig wells to provide clean
   water, investigate corruption, and so on. These are non-profit
   because they are fundamentally engaged in activities that cost money
   instead of earning it.

2. Organizations that provide a needed "neutral ground" for businesses
   to operate, such as standards making bodies or consortia managing
   when and where cables can be laid down. These are non-profit because
   the profit motive would create a conflict of interest with the
   businesses they were created to serve.

There are other organizations that don't fit this, like credit unions
(non-profit banks), but I think it covers the majority. In general the
first type of non-profit is poor and the second type is well-off.

The thing about the RIPE NCC and the other RIRs is that the world has
for some reason assumed that they fit into category #1 ("they exist for
the good of the Internet!"). I would argue that the RIPE NCC and the
other RIRs are very firmly in category #2 ("we are an industry
association"). 

It is a pity that none of the RIRs have never done anything to change
this idea, but I can understand why not. Would you rather be an
organization that shuffles paperwork or one that is there to make the
world a better place? :)

Anyway, I'll reply to the notion of opening up abuse investigations in
a mail to Sander's specific proposal.

Cheers,

--
Shane