[anti-abuse-wg] survey ?

Leo Vegoda wrote:
> Hi Frank,
> 
> Frank Gadegast wrote:
> 
> [...]
> 
>> Somebody responsible simply has to step forward and do
>> something, there will be no consensus with that many members.
> 
> You mean you want an autocracy?

No, thats democracy.

Some people step forward and take responsibility.
Some of them are being elected and do the job.

And you can vote for somebody else, when you dont like, what they
are doing.

> How will you get everyone to follow the rules of this leader or king? The reason the decision making process is the way it is, is because there is no way to compel network operators to obey a king. If RIPE and the RIPE NCC began to operate in a way that most people thought was unreasonable then most people would ignore RIPE and the RIPE NCC.

Well, the provider are ignoring RIPE anyway.
They can ignore whatever is helpful to protect the users from spam,
because there are no strict rules from RIPE to help against
spam-friendly provider.

The abuse-field is not mandatory.
There are no regulations in RIPE membership contracts, that members are
responsible for abuse they cause.

But thats, what RIPE has to do to stop abuse.

This workgroup is absolutely useless, if there is no interest or
consense between all members, because there are members, that will block
all regulations against abuse, because they make profit with spam or are
not willing to invest time and money to protect the internet.

Guess why the abuse-field never made it to be mandatory.
Think about, why we are talking over a year now about a clear
definition of abuse, without any result.

So what now ?
Will this group generate a recommendation soon ? Ever ?

A test:
------------------------------------------------------------------
everybody on this list, should simply reply now

( ) I want RIPE to have regulations against abuse
( ) I want RIPE to take consequences against spam friendly members
------------------------------------------------------------------

We can stop talking, if we do not get 100% positive response
to the first question, because any minority can then stop the whole
definition process.
We can also stop talking, if we do not get a 100% positive response
to the second question, because regulations without consequences will
be ignored like it is now.

And: if some on this list are not answering, they are not against abuse
and will block any progress.


Kind regards, Frank

> Regards,
> 
> Leo
> 
> 
> 


-- 

Mit freundlichen Gruessen,
--
PHADE Software - PowerWeb                       http://www.powerweb.de
Inh. Dipl.-Inform. Frank Gadegast             mailto:frank at powerweb.de
Schinkelstrasse 17                                fon: +49 33200 52920
14558 Nuthetal OT Rehbruecke, Germany             fax: +49 33200 52921
======================================================================
Public PGP Key available for frank at powerweb.de