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

  • From: der Mouse mouse@localhost
  • Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2008 22:24:07 -0500 (EST)

> We prefer to call it bottom up policy setting which is peferable to
> top down policy setting.

I agree - except that the authority is top-down, so either
responsibility needs to be top-down too or authority needs to be
changed.

Unless you can come up with some way to ensure that bottom-up
responsibility and top-down authority at least roughly match (and will
necessarily continue to do so) even though they arise from completely
different bases, that is.

> Meanwhile I will retire from the discussion since you seem to want a
> different world

Don't we all?  (Or we wouldn't be on this list.)

> but you want others to do the work for you.

Do I have to be an auto mechanic to recognize that a car is broken?
Furthermore, my stance is that what we are all paying our RIRs for
includes the "responsibility" side of managing the resources with which
they are entrusted as well as the "authority" side.  This is why I
speak (well, write) of them as ducking work they are being paid for.

In short, yes, certainly I want others to do the work - specifically,
the others who are being paid to do it!

I don't expect you to agree with this point of view, of course.

/~\ 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