[address-policy-wg] RIPE staff vs Court

Hello Mark,

I'm not against RIPE decision now, I'm against drop down ten businesses
down just because one man thought that "it seems" something for him.

Each such business-critical case should be pedantic investigated by a
group of authoritative people, if not a court. No way any "it seems..."!

While Dutch Court process a case (it is not a hours or days, much more I
think) clients will went away, isn't it?

Mark Scholten wrote:
> Hello Max,
> 
> As long as it is Dutch Court I don't see a problem.
> 
> If you are against a decision RIPE did make you can go to Dutch Court and
> ask if they decide to change it.
> 
> With kind regards,
> 
> Mark Scholten
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net
> [mailto:address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Max Tulyev
> Sent: woensdag 21 oktober 2009 18:42
> To: address-policy-wg at ripe.net
> Subject: [address-policy-wg] RIPE staff vs Court
> 
> Hello!
> 
> Today I just got a strange letter from RIPE staff. I didn't saw anything
> like that before. They told me about a ten of networks registered
> through our LIR. All these networks have changed admin-c and tech-c to
> other country, and routed through one server on that country.
> 
> Based on this, RIPE man sent the notification about reclamation of that
> networks, as "that seems to don't be valid anymore."
> 
> Of course, I immediately contacted my client and asked what's happened.
> He said they work as usual, but one certain offshore IT company is used
> to manage their networks. So they changed contact details to that
> company, as that company is correct contact point in any network
> questions. And traffic flows through the offshore company site as they
> manage and control it, hosts data, etc.
> 
>>From one point of view, situation seems very strange. From second -
> nothing to be not real in practice. So we (first time?) faced with IP
> reclamation dispute. I don't really know did our clients something bad -
> perhaps no, as none from these nets listed at Spamhouse ;). I think it
> is 50/50. May be they told me (and RIPE) truth, may be lied. I can't
> 100% check it by tools/rights/possibilities I have.
> 
> But about ten of businesses are on decision of one person that "seems to
> ...".
> 
> My strong position is THERE SHOULD BE A COURT DECISION OR OUR COMMUNITY
> COURT-LIKE STRUCTURE, and only that structure based on court-like
> controversy process (if not a real court) can make a decision about
> reclaim any address space. NO WAYS LIKE "IT SEEMS TO...".
> 
> So now we have: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-475.html#42
> My proposal is to change:
> "Violation of Law by the End User, supported by a Dutch court order; or
> violation of RIPE Policy by the End User"
>  to
> "Violation of Law by the End User, supported by a Dutch court order; or
> violation of RIPE Policy by the End User, SUPPORTED BY..."
> 
> By what? By Dutch Court? By some independent court-like staff? Any ideas?
> 


-- 
WBR,
Max Tulyev (MT6561-RIPE, 2:463/253 at FIDO)