[db-wg] [anti-abuse-wg] objection to RIPE policy proposal 2016-01
- Previous message (by thread): [db-wg] [anti-abuse-wg] objection to RIPE policy proposal 2016-01
- Next message (by thread): [db-wg] [anti-abuse-wg] objection to RIPE policy proposal 2016-01
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
James Gannon
james at cyberinvasion.net
Thu Mar 3 23:05:14 CET 2016
+1 -jg On 03/03/2016, 10:03 p.m., "anti-abuse-wg on behalf of denis" <anti-abuse-wg-bounces at ripe.net on behalf of ripedenis at yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >Hi Gert > >I am sorry but I TOTALLY disagree with you here. You have a very old >fashioned view of both the registry and the 'management' of the internet >by some bottom up, open, transparent, industry/community driven process. > >I make no apologies here for doing another Donald Trump. I am going to >say what needs to be said, regardless of what people think about what I say. > >Your view is typical of people who have been involved in this industry >for a very long time. You probably remember the days when the internet >was an 'old boys club' and everyone involved in the development knew >each other. That was last century....we have moved on since then. The >internet now impacts in some way on the lives of almost every person on >this planet. It is part of the critical infrastructure of 21st century >life at every level. > >There is much political interest now in how the internet is managed. >Someone has to take responsibility for this management. The ITU and many >governments are seriously interested in getting their hands on this >management. But the RIRs and other technical/user interest groups are >still able to show a responsible approach to managing a global >infrastructure. > >The public finds abuse on the internet a serious problem. Not just spam >but the more serious criminal aspects like phishing. This can destroy >people's lives. Politicians are all self interested. If they can grab >hold of a public concern and make campaigns out of it then it benefits >their careers. The more technical people play down the impact of >handling abuse on the internet and show they really don't want to be >bothered in handling it, the more you play into their hands in the long >term. > >The RIRs have to be much more involved these days in internet governance >and the handling of issues like abuse concerns. Whether you like it or >not these are real concerns for the registries now. So either you >surrender control to governments through the ITU and accept a very >different internet to what we have now, or you move with the times and >embrace the political and responsible management concerns of a 21st >century, global resource. > >The more I hear long term, experienced internet people like yourself and >Randy constantly criticising the role of the RIRs and wishing for the >old days, the more I fear for the future of the internet. > >cheers >denis > > >On 03/03/2016 19:54, Gert Doering wrote: >> Hi, >> >> On Thu, Mar 03, 2016 at 12:56:05PM +0200, andre at ox.co.za wrote: >>> it is actually very simple: >>> >>> any rigorously correct resource allocation registry data must >>> include accurate abuse records. >> >> No. It needs to contain accurate records of who has been delegated >> responsibility for that (admin-c / org). >> >> abuse-c is a way to ease finding the *right* contacts instead of always >> having to write paper mail to the company CEO - and that makes sense, >> but it's a convenience to operators (as is tech-c), and in no means >> required for the function as registry. >> >> Which might conincide with the fact that the paperwork you sign when >> opening a LIR has no field for abuse-c... >> >> Gert Doering >> -- NetMaster >> >
- Previous message (by thread): [db-wg] [anti-abuse-wg] objection to RIPE policy proposal 2016-01
- Next message (by thread): [db-wg] [anti-abuse-wg] objection to RIPE policy proposal 2016-01
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
[ db-wg Archives ]