[anti-abuse-wg] Enabling community self-help?
Florian Weimer fw at deneb.enyo.de
Thu Mar 29 21:34:44 CEST 2012
* Shane Kerr: > Contrariwise, the RIPE NCC is unable to unwilling to change its role > from a fundamentally administrative to one that involves setting > network usage policies. Certain network usage policies. They do seem to care if you use IPv6 PI space to connect customers. 8-) > Plus it is hard to get the RIPE NCC membership to support mechanisms > which cost them money and limit their freedoms. Is it? As a first approximation, RIPE NCC only executes the policies set by the RIPE community. Their function is mostly bureaucratic, so as an organization, RIPE NCC inevitably has a tendency to acquire additional responsibilities, diversify and grow. This is especially important because we're approaching the end of address scarcity. > On the 3rd hand, some people in the RIPE community (including me) > also feel that it is very, very difficult to define what the required > actions would be in the case of reported abuse. This reporting > mechanism itself might indeed be a source of abuse (rivalries between > companies could be fought by each accusing the other of hosting > criminal activity). Yes, that's certainly a problem. > Maybe it makes sense to make something like a web forum for each > allocated resource, or perhaps for the organization responsible for > each. We'd have to find someone host such a site in the U.S. because otherwise, the hoster will be responsible for such user-generated content. There are also privacy issues. Alternatively, with heavy moderation, the net result would not be that much different from Spamhaus' ROKSO list, would it?