RE: [address-policy-wg] Re: [anti-spam-wg] Fwd: Re: Re: NCC#2007083003 Fwd: DELIVERY FAILURE:
To: address-policy-wg@localhost, anti-spam-wg@localhost
From: Jørgen Hovland jorgen@localhost
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2007 10:15:18 +0200
I'm not sure if you have thought through your idea very thoughtfully, Mr Brown. The internet changes every second. It is more or less impossible to maintain proper information in ripe objects for end-users. An IP address can belong to customer A for 1 minute and then be taken over by customer B 5 seconds later in our net. If you want to contact the end-user directly, the RIPE whois server is not sufficient in the current state of today.
Just keep contacting the ISP instead..
From: address-policy-wg-admin@localhost  On Behalf Of der Mouse
Sent: 24. august 2007 20:55
To: apwg-chairs@localhost address-policy-wg@localhost anti-spam-wg@localhost
Subject: [address-policy-wg] Re: [anti-spam-wg] Fwd: Re: Re: NCC#2007083003 Fwd: DELIVERY FAILURE:
> 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 someone reports incorrect or outdated information.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. Not surprising, of course; lots of people would rather
pocket the money and duck the responsibility. 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.
Any system with mismatches between authority and responsibility grows
abuses, until one of three things happens: (1) the mismatch is
corrected, (2) the system collapses, or (3) in mild cases, an
equilibrium is reached, with the level of abuse concomitant with the
level of mismatches. In the case of Internet governance, the mismatch
appears to be total, so (3) is out, and there appears to be no will
whatever to do (1), so I expect the abuses to simply grow until the net
collapses from them. The only reason I'm not just standing back and
watching it happen is that I'd like to have a usable Internet myself in
the near term - during the time it would take for the current system to
collapse and shake out something less broken.
/~\ 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