You are here: Home > Participate > Join a Discussion > Mailman Archives
<<< Chronological >>> Author Index    Subject Index <<< Threads >>>

Re: Commecial vs fairness (was: spam support)

  • To:
  • From: "Clive D.W. Feather" < >
  • Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002 17:07:49 +0000
  • Cc: "'Anne Marcel Roorda'" < >

paul@localhost said:
>>> 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?
>>   Yes. Please visit your friendly local legal advisor.
> Being a monopoly isn't illegal. It's a question of whether you abuse a
> monopoly

And "abuse" is fairly widely defined.

> (don't get me started on

Please explain (in private email, if you like).

[Declaration: I am on the Nominet Policy Advisory Board. If there is an
issue, I wish to know.]

> I think requiring those
> to whom any services are allocated to abide by reasonable terms and
> conditions is not abusing a monopoly.

"Reasonable" isn't enough. Go and look at what the law actually say.

In the UK, that's the Competition Act 1998, s.18(2)(d):

    making the conclusion of contracts subject to acceptance by the other
    parties of supplementary obligations which, by their nature or according
    to commercial usage, have no connection with the subject of the

Since the subject is "supply of IP addresses", an obligation to run an
abuse team has "no connection with the subject".

> Who wouldn't want network providers to
> terminate persistent spammers, spamvertizers, etc.?

The DMA. The people who make money from spam.

The fact you (and I) dislike such people does not give RIPE the right to
impose such rules.

Clive D.W. Feather  | Work:  clive@localhost   | Tel:  +44 20 8371 1138
Internet Expert     | Home:  clive@localhost  | Fax:  +44 870 051 9937
Demon Internet      | WWW: | Mobile: +44 7973 377646
Thus plc            |                            | NOTE: fax number change

  • Post To The List:
<<< Chronological >>> Author    Subject <<< Threads >>>