<<< Chronological >>> Author Index    Subject Index <<< Threads >>>

RE: [anti-spam-wg@localhost] Contacts

  • From: "Chris Jones" < >
  • Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 13:19:50 -0000


> -----Original Message-----
> From: anti-spam-wg-admin@localhost
> [
> Behalf Of Martin Neitzel > Sent: 22 January 2003 12:15 > To: jrace@localhost > Subject: Re: [anti-spam-wg@localhost] Contacts > It is my impression that things get more and more intermixed here and > beyond what der Mouse intended in first place. The way I understood > him was not asking that the RIPE penalizes some LIR because of spam. > The question was, paraphrased: > > A LIR should be responsible for accurate contact info for both > its customer and itself. A RIR should be able to enforce this. > > which would not be spam issue at all but a general lir-wg issue. > > The RIPE gives already the possibilty to file external > complaints against > LIRs, see http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/auditing.html. While this > procedure is mainly concerned about fair address assignments, > "database > consistency" is explicitly one of the issues being checked. From > "4.1 Principles": > > Database Consistency > > 1. Is the information stored in the RIPE database concerning > the assignments within Registry's allocation correct (separate > up-to-date entries pointing to all individual customer > assignments)? > > I think this answers a few of the previous questions. The penalty for > violations is a lowered assignment window, which should be at least an > quite effective lesson. Thank you for explaining this, Martin. However, there should be better information available from the RIPE web site highlighting this and other procedures. It was my understanding, from many previous contacts with RIPE (and also other RIRs), that the RIR's "cannot" act in any way as policeman with regard to ensuring registry details are maintained in an uptodate form. In regard to the lowering of assignment window(s), I do not understand what that means. My feeling is though, that a suspension of registration (meaning the inability of LIR/ISP customers to access the net) is the least penalty that RIR's should be given the authority to implement. The period should be pre-defined and should be for periods starting at (say) 48 hours and increasing on subsequent infractions to (say) one month without the RIR trustees giving their consent. The mere threat of such penalties should encourage LIRs/ISPs to ensure that their registration is kept uptodate. Pending legislation will insist on such penalties being implemented before ceding the right to the existing administration to continue as a self-governing body. -- From Chris Jones mailto: chris@localhost web: http://www.telespan.co.uk/ My PGP Key:- RSA 2048/1024 Key ID: 0x2B1F1593 Fingerprint: B073 FE31 0A6A 6BD6 C4DB 750D 2B30 D0E7 2B1F 1593

  • Post To The List:
<<< Chronological >>> Author    Subject <<< Threads >>>