Re: [anti-spam-wg] Non-cooperation of RIPE ISP in investigating report of email abuse (spam)

>> [As I see it] [designing and implementing anti-abuse policies] is
>> actually part of RIPE's job (where "RIPE" means the entity that
>> assigns resources, collects payment, [...]).
> Taking you're "as I see it" throughout the above my response would be
> that you are seeing it incorrectly.  This is not part of the RIPE
> NCC's job unless the RIPE community form a policy [...]

You misunderstood - or I miswrote, whichever way you prefer to see it.

I don't mean "this is (as I see it) part of what RIPE ("RIPE" as above)
currently sees as its job".  I mean "this is (as I see it) an essential
part of the job of managing the resources RIPE is managing".  That is,
I think RIPE's job as you describe it, (apparently) as they see it, is
only part of what they should be doing, what they *must* do if we are
to have a sustainable Internet governance structure anything like the
current one.

That is, I think it is their job in much the same sense of the word in
which I think that maintaining a healthy ecological environment is
everyone's job.

Since I am not European, I have nothing against the European community
forming a body with a mandate to do just what RIPE is doing now -
exercise authority without accepting the matching respnosibility.  But
ICANN/IANA should never have given so much as a single address to such
a body; absent an entity that is prepared to accept the responsibility
along with the authority, no authority should have been delegated.

And - to get back to the question that I was replying to in my quote
above - I feel no particular responsibility to volunteer to do, for
free, what I see as an integral part of what someone else is already
being paid to do (namely, managing those resources).

/~\ 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