Re: [anti-spam-wg] Fwd: Re: Re: NCC#2007083003 Fwd: DELIVERY FAILURE:

  • To: apwg-chairs@localhost, address-policy-wg@localhost, anti-spam-wg@localhost
  • From: der Mouse mouse@localhost
  • Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2007 17:59:14 -0400 (EDT)

>>> I Matthew Brown, would like to request that there be some sort of
>>> action, to allow the ripe database managers to contact ISP(s) when
>>> someone reports incorrect or outdated information.
>> Good luck - and I mean that; I hope you succeed, though at this
>> point I don't really expect it.  I've gone a few rounds with RIPE
>> myself on that issue; they appear to want the authority of "owning"
>> (and being paid for the subdelegation of) address space without the
>> concomitant responsibility.
> When you last commented on this subject in April, I suggested that
> you propose a policy to tackle the issue.  Perhaps you are still
> developing your proposal.  In any case, I look forward to reading it.

["You" and related words here refer to ICANN/IANA, not any individual
except insofar as that individual is wearing an ICANN/IANA hat.]

Why is it *my* duty to fix *your* screwup?  The current, broken, system
was put in place asking (or even telling) me; why is it up to me to fix
its problems?  Because I'm the person pointing them out!?  *You* are
being paid to run the Internet; go do your job!  Asking me to make up
for your failings - without pay, I note - is shirking your duty.

In any case, my "proposal" is that ICANN impose responsibility along
with authority: as a simple example (restricted just to address space
assignment), it could establish an AUP that RIRs would have to comply
with to keep their assigned space - and then enforce it (this step is
not optional, or the fix won't actually fix anything).

What would this AUP say?  I don't know, offhand; I am not a policy
author.  I recall seeing RIPE say their sub-assignees have to conform
to an AUP of some sort, at least de-jure; if that memory is accurate,
that policy might well be a reasonable place to start.

>> The real problem is that ICANN/IANA lets them get away with it, and
>> I see that (that the top of the governance pyramid does not impose
>> responsibility on those to whom it delegates authority - and I don't
>> mean just RIRs; the same problem recurs with domains) as the
>> fundamental problem that is killing today's net with abusers and
>> abuses.
> Sadly, you have misunderstood the policy development process.  IANA
> does not set policy and nor does the RIPE NCC.

IANA (or perhaps ICANN; I'm not entirely clear where the boundaries
between them lie) *has* to.  They have been given the authority; they
have to take the responsibility - or we have the kind of mismatch I
wrote about in the quote above.  When they delegate authority, such as
by assigning address space to RIRs, they have to impose corresponding
responsibility, or, again, we have a mismatch.

If they - IANA/ICANN - accept the authority but not the responsibility,
as you seem to be saying they have, they system will break.  Is
breaking, in the case of the Internet, and will break worse and worse
until the mismatch is fixed.

Sitting on their thumbs waiting for someone else to solve the problem,
which is what I see them doing, is *not* a responsible thing for
ICANN/IANA to do here.  If this is being done because that's what the
procedures in place call for, then the procedures themselves are broken
and need to be fixed.

/~\ The ASCII				der Mouse
\ / Ribbon Campaign
 X  Against HTML	       mouse@localhost
/ \ Email!	     7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39  4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B