This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/[email protected]/
[anti-abuse-wg] Re: Interaction between the RIPE and anti-abuse communities, was Draft Anti-Abuse WG Minutes ? RIPE 61
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Re: Interaction between the RIPE and anti-abuse communities, was Draft Anti-Abuse WG Minutes ? RIPE 61
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Re: Interaction between the RIPE and anti-abuse communities, was Draft Anti-Abuse WG Minutes ? RIPE 61
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Suresh Ramasubramanian
ops.lists at gmail.com
Wed Feb 2 14:14:17 CET 2011
http://www.ripe.net/ripe/wg/ncc-services/r59-minutes.html has an interesting quote - probably the one useful nugget in that discussion. --- and i quote --- John Curran (ARIN) explained how this is done in the ARIN region. He said that ARIN does verification, but when a fraud is uncovered, ARIN does act to revoke resources. This is not related directly to the criminal activities, but due to a violation of the policy. Uwe agreed that it is not the RIPE NCC's job to determine what is legal or not, but pointed out that allowing somebody that obtained resources to use these resources for illegal purposes leaves him outside the law. He said that he will present propositions to the mailing list to reformulate the text in RIPE Document ripe-452 to revoke resources if an organisation if found not to actually exist. -------- So - if you wouldn't want to ask a microsoft lawyer, please feel free to ask ARIN what they do to verify paperwork, and to reclaim fraudulently registered address space. On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 6:37 PM, Gert Doering <gert at space.net> wrote: > 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 > -- Suresh Ramasubramanian (ops.lists at gmail.com)
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Re: Interaction between the RIPE and anti-abuse communities, was Draft Anti-Abuse WG Minutes ? RIPE 61
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Re: Interaction between the RIPE and anti-abuse communities, was Draft Anti-Abuse WG Minutes ? RIPE 61
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]