[anti-abuse-wg] Re: Interaction between the RIPE and anti-abuse communities, was Draft Anti-Abuse WG Minutes ? RIPE 61

Hi,

On Wed, Feb 02, 2011 at 05:59:29PM +0530, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
> 1. As a post mortem

So how much effort do we want to make (read: should the LIRs pay) on
a dead horse?

> 2. To possibly stop those same entities from acquiring v6 blocks?

If these entities are legitimate businesses according to their national
law, if the RIPE NCC will *not* give them addresses, we're going to 
have large problems (anti-monopoly laws, etc.).

The situation is quite clear if a LEA shows up and states "these are
criminals", and the RIPE policy takes that into account (withdraw addresses).

Now, how do you know upfront that a new business is criminal, as defined
by applicable law?  "Is run by a well-known spammer" might be clear to
you and me, but is it clear enough from a *legal* perspective?

Gert Doering
-- 
did you enable IPv6 on something today...?

SpaceNet AG                        Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14          Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen                   HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444            USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 306 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/anti-abuse-wg/attachments/20110202/0c6645e3/attachment.sig>