[address-policy-wg] Re: [anti-spam-wg] Fwd: Re: Re: NCC#2007083003 Fwd: DELIVERY FAILURE:

>> The real problem is that ICANN/IANA lets them get away with it, and
>> I see that (that the top of the governance pyramid does not impose
>> responsibility on those to whom it delegates authority

>> Any system with mismatches between authority and responsibility
>> grows abuses, until one of three things happens:

> The scope of this problem is much larger than ICANN or the Internet.
> We need to press for the same application of power against
> communication abusers by the equivalent authorities who assign
> telephone numbers and postal addresses.

I don't think so.  In neither case is there the same kind of mismatch
between authority and responsibility.

In the case of telephone numbers, the delegated-to entities (the
telcos) do take the responsibility - they don't ignore abuse.  Filing
complaints about telephone harrassment or other abuse doesn't happen
that much, but that's in part because the threat is always there, and
it's a real threat.  Furthermore, as common carriers, the telcos are
comparatively tightly regulated - I don't know the details, but at
least some of that assumption of responsibility is mandated by law.

In the case of postal addresses, there is no intermediate layer - the
same entity that is the top-level manager is also the bottom-level
manager, as if the IANA assigned individnal machines' IP addresses
(which would be bizarre for the Internet, but, because the systems are
so different, works for the postal system).  And the responsibility is
there; abuse involving postal addresses exists, but again, not much,
because there are real sanctions against abusers.  Use a postal address
as a drop-box for a criminal enterprise and watch the heat that comes
down on you for it.

/~\ The ASCII				der Mouse
\ / Ribbon Campaign
 X  Against HTML	       mouse at rodents.montreal.qc.ca
/ \ Email!	     7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39  4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B