[anti-abuse-wg] Allocation of number resources
Ronald F. Guilmette rfg at tristatelogic.com
Fri Feb 8 21:07:00 CET 2013
In message <51151006.3070401 at heanet.ie>, Brian Nisbet <brian.nisbet at heanet.ie> wrote: >On 07/02/2013 20:05, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote: >> Does the charter of this group include, or conversely, fail to include >> that the group can, should, and will advocate for the denial of resources >> _generally_ to those who abuse the Internet? > >The reclamation of resources is not specifically stated in the charter. >Of course, should the WG will it, the charter can always be re-examined. What would be the process for initiating such a change? >However the group has had multiple interactions with the NCC in regards >to the closing of LIRs and the reclamation of resources. So, if I have understood you, you are saying that this WG has already been advocating for the denial of resources, generally, to those who abuse the Internet, correct? >and the final document is here: > >https://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-517 It would appear that a newer revision of this document exists: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-541 I am studying it with more than a little facination. Already, my attention has been drawn to two specific segments of this document: B.1.1.b Invalidity of original allocation/assignment criteria Internet number resources are allocated/assigned based on a specific need. When the original technical requirements or the business purpose for the use of the Internet number resources change, the allocation/ assignment becomes invalid. If the RIPE NCC notices any change in the original technical criteria or the original business purposes for using the Internet number resources, the RIPE NCC is authorised to deregister the relevant Internet number resources. B.1.1.e Fraudulent request If a Member has submitted a fraudulent request for an allocation or an Independent resource (for example, by providing incorrect purpose/ need or falsified information about the network, etc.), the RIPE NCC will deregister the relevant records. Personally, I have slightly more than a passing familiarity with U.S. law, and I am aware that within U.S. law, even tiny details (i.e. individual words) can make a great difference to interpretation. Thus, I am forced to ask if the difference in language between the two sections above was/is deliberate or not. On the one hand, the first section says that "...RIPE NCC is authorised to deregister..." while on the other hand the second section says that "... RIPE NCC will deregister...". The latter is obviously stronger than the former. Was that deliberate or inadvertant? (Note that this difference in language is mirrored again in sections B.1.2.c and B.1.2.f.) I am also curious about this passage from B.1.1.b: "If the RIPE NCC notices any change in the original technical criteria or the original business purposes for using the Internet number resources...". I gather that the purpose of the online web reporting form I have heard tell about is supposed to be a way in which random citizens, such as myself, can cause or induce RIPE NCC to "notice" that a given assigneee is not using its number resources in conformance with "the original technical criteria or the original business purposes". Is that correct? Assming so, could someone please send me the URL of that again. Thanks. Regards, rfg P.S. Regarding the earlier discussion as to publication of all reports made to RIPE NCC via that form... yes... I see now how that could be invaluable. Without that, the reports could easily fall into a black hole, never to be heard from again, _even_ in cases where Sections B.1.1.e and B.1.2.f of the above document seem to _require_ action on the part of RIPE NCC.