Re: [anti-spam-wg@localhost] Contacts
- Date: 20 Jan 2003 13:47:45 +0000
On Sun, 2003-01-19 at 11:27, Dr. Jeffrey Race wrote:
> Thank you for your encouraging comments.
I do try :-)
> >change), and then multiply by the number of LIR's. It is a practically
> >impossible task.
> It's not at all impossible; you just have to assign the resources and
> management attention to it.
It is theoretically possible, in the same sort of way that I would also
agree that moving mountains is purely a matter of assigning resources
and management. But you attempt neither without very serious evaluation
of whether you would be better off attempting to solve the problem at
hand in a different manner.
> I have encountered your objection in dealing with spam-enabling ISPs,
> who claim it is too complicated and time-consuming to play whack-a-
> mole with spammers. However when threatened with blocklisting
> they suddenly find they can do it (within hours) using alternative
> methods which were always available to them.
This is different in that spam-enabled ISPs stand to incur direct
financial loss as a result of harbouring spammers due to blacklists and
so forth. While you propose that fines be levied against organisations
who fail to keep all of their data fresh, I would argue that this would
destroy the co-operative relationship that the RIPE NCC has with its
members. Furthermore, RIPE does not have a mandate to levy fines, and
given its bottom-up structure, I can't see this happening any time soon.
> Every (good) parent knows that "requiring" something without an
> enforcement mechanism for non-compliance ("you're grounded")
> produces anti-social offspring in significant numbers of cases.
> This is what the Internet faces. The same principles of human
> behavior apply. That is the unique approach embodied in my
I read the draft, and being a parent, I'm aware that laws without
enforcement mechanisms are very weak. All you propose is that the
databases be kept up-to-date, in some fashion, without any suggestions
about how this can be done. If you could propose details, I might be
interested to argue further.
> tied to the profits of the entity served. These two founding
> assumptions have disappeared, so a new mechanism of imperative
> coordination is required.
Aha, the nub of the issue: "imperative coordination".
What you're asking for is for RIPE to carry a big stick, and that it be
both threatened and wielded. RIPE isn't the army: it's co-operative
organisation. Your proposals would kill this co-operation and