Re: Commecial vs fairness (was: spam support)
- Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002 14:24:19 +0000 (GMT)
On Mon, 18 Feb 2002, Clive D.W. Feather wrote:
> > Do you think asking AS's to apply border filters,
>
> That one is perhaps arguable.
No, there's no excuse for this apart from ignorance or laziness. By
having this as part of the LIR terms and conditions, ignorance is no
longer a valid excuse. Laziness can be dealt with by preventing further
allocations in the same way that LIR's who are lazy with reclaiming and
re-using old assignments are today.
> I don't think you could define "abuse/spam complaints" well enough. Or
> "respond", for that matter. There are a huge number of issues that you
> need to think through.
Quantify it and standardise the process. Have a standard form which has
to be completed and sent to the appropriate LIR contact, Cc:ed to the RIPE
department that would deal with abuse. At the moment, the problem is that
it's all on an adhoc basis which limits the effectiveness of the whole
process.
> And, most crucially, failure to "respond" to a "complaint" doesn't
> alter the ability to operate TCP/IP.
It implies a failure to be able to manage your network effectively.
> Yes. Starting with the definition of "child" and working up/down from
> there.
As I've said before, you either apply the laws that are local to the
country that the material is hosted in or use the lowest common
denominator if that proves unworkable.
> There's also a slippery slope you *really* don't want to get on.
Someone needs to be addressing these issues. If the internet community
won't self regulate then the governments will do it for you. If you are
worried about having your views heard in a membership of 3000, then
consider what will happen if these rules are decided by European Parliment
or Westminster.
> Irrelevant. If it were a policy that 51% agreed on, does that make it right
> to impose it on the other 49% ? 99%/1% ?
Maybe someone from RIPE could advise us as to what's involved in getting
things changed?
As for the actual percentages involved, it's symantics. If you don't
agree with the voting process then change the voting process.
> Because they *do* have a monopoly in IP etc allocation. So they can update
> their charter all they want, but if they use that update to abuse the
> monopoly, that's illegal.
"monopoly: noun [C]
(an organization or group which has) a power of control which is not
shared by other people or groups, esp. in business to make and sell goods
or provide a service"
If the RIPE NCC is directed by the RIPE membership (who all have a share
of the power), can this really be called a monopoly?
> Try rereading what I said. Democracy passed those rules, because it
> recognised that majority rule is not always true democracy.
Then we stick to things that all LIR's can be reasonably expected to
enforce. For starters:
1) Applying border filters
2) Responding to an abuse email within 48 hours (action taken, not
including bots)
3) Responding to an spam email within 48 hours (action taken, not
including bots)
4) Removing any pornography which includes under 16s.
Each item to be voted on separately by the RIPE membership.
Regards,
Rich Morrell
edNET
