[anti-abuse-wg] New Abuse Information on RIPE NCC Website
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] New Abuse Information on RIPE NCC Website
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] New Abuse Information on RIPE NCC Website
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Brian Nisbet
brian.nisbet at heanet.ie
Fri Jun 21 13:23:27 CEST 2013
Ronald F. Guilmette wrote, On 20/06/2013 21:26: > In message <51C2F0A3.8040302 at heanet.ie>, > Brian Nisbet <brian.nisbet at heanet.ie> wrote: > >> I'm going to snip a lot of this mail, but there's a core issue I'd like >> to address. >> >>> Now, imagine for a moment that The Duchy of Grand Fenwick (google it) has >>> just passed a law _requiring_ all of its citizens to spam. What is RIPE >>> going to do? Issue each citizen of Grand Fenwick his or her own /24? >>> In short, at what point does respect for the individuality and authority >>> of the constituent nations and municipalities of the entire RIPE region >>> cross over into unambiguous lunacy? >> >> It's an interesting hypothetical, certainly. There are a number of >> possible options. The first is that the EU, or just the Netherlands, >> became aware of this and said "These people are bad, EU companies may >> not trade with them". The RIPE NCC operates under Dutch law, so they >> would be forced to stop doing business with those people. > > A highly unlikely scenario, I think you will agree. Not unlikely at all. As the last sentence of that paragraph says, it happened recently in real life. >> The second may be that while these companies may be legitimate >> businesses the NCC is aware of the local law and says, "Ah, no, we know, >> for a fact, that you are mandated to use these resources for network >> abuse, therefore your application is invalid." > > Again, based upon the current available evidence, also a highly unlikely > scenario. Less likely, certainly, but we're talking in deep hypotheticals here. >> The third option may be that the law is passed, the resources are handed >> out and the RIPE community, so incensed by this, writes a policy that >> allows for far more invasive deregistration and closure steps and the >> membership of the NCC signs off on this. It would be... fun (fcvo fun) >> to watch and I suspect Nigel may cry. > > I'm not even sure which specific Nigel you are referring to, but I for one > could live with that. Ah, sorry, Nigel Titley, the Chairman of the Executive Board of the NCC. Also, and I know I've said this several times before, there is nothing stopping a member (or members) of the community from writing such a proposal right now. >> Of course in amongst all of this I would suspect if the resources were >> handed out, there would be a lot of depeering and null routing going on >> in relation to the poor, forced-to-spam, citizens of the Grand Duchy. :) > > Once again, based upon the available evidence, I would claim that it > would in fact be improbable that any substantial amount of deppeering > and/or null routing would occur, in practice. It is a classic "trajedy > of the commons" problem, and no operator would wish to have to explain > to its user base why they, end end lusers, can no longer send e-mail to > their cousins in Grand Fenwick. I'm not sure, Spamhaus were quite happy to block Latvia for a far smaller reason. I think if it was a mandated activity for all citizens the reaction of the international community might be interesting. Brian
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] New Abuse Information on RIPE NCC Website
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] New Abuse Information on RIPE NCC Website
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]