[anti-abuse-wg] RIPE policy

In message <EA9DF45F-B584-48C4-A598-0EA671C54011 at icann.org>, 
Leo Vegoda <leo.vegoda at icann.org> wrote:

>On Mar 8, 2011, at 3:57 PM, "Ronald F. Guilmette" <rfg at tristatelogic.com> w
>rote:
>
>[...]
>
>>>>   Rather, I was wondering more about the apparent
>>>> re-assignment (re-selling?) of RIPE IP space, en mass, to parties outsi
>de
>>>> of the RIPE geographic jurisdiction.
>>> Do you mean selling IP connectivity to networks outside the region? That
>> is
>>> fairly common and not unreasonable. For instance, satellite connectivity
> p
>>> roviders often have customers in fairly remote locations.
>>
>> The several cases I posted are _not_ ``satellite connectivity providers''
>,
>> and these are _not_ just, like, /28s and /29s we are talking about here.
>
>I asked you to clarify what you meant and gave an example of a legitimate s
>ituation.

With all due respect, no.  You gave an example of a situation which you
personally believe to be in some sense ``legitimate''.

Is there a document somewhere, either within RIPE or ICANN, that says
explicitly that ``satellite connectivity providers'' may do X, Y, and Z?

Is there a document somewhere, either within RIPE or ICANN, that explicitly
defines the term ``satellite connectivity providers'' in a way so that anyone
with basic familiarity with networking could easily differentiate things
that are ``satellite connectivity providers'' from things that are not?
I mean FORMALLY?

(If you are determined to play lawyer, then you really should approach the
game armed with a suitable set of formal, ratified documents to support
your positions and assertions, I think.)

>Asking again: do you mean selling connectivity services?

I could perhaps attempt to answer your question if it were not so clearly
ambiguous.

Why don't you start by defining your terms with at least the level of rigor
that you are, apparently, demanding of me when I post a simple and reasonable
question about policy?

What EXACTLY do you mean by ``selling connectivity services''.  Please be
precise.  Then I might be able to provide an answer to your question.

When providing your definition, please be sure that it is ``testable'' in
the scientific sense of the word, that is it should be possible for a
person skilled in the art to use your definition to consistantly and
accurately determine what sets of circumstances do or do not constitute
``selling connectivity services''.

>Selling address blocks without connectivity is different from selling them 
>with it.

It is?

Why do you assert that those two things are ``different''?

How precisely do those differ, and how, exactly, could a person skilled in
the art tell them apart?

Is there a formal ratified policy document somwhere that says that they differ?

Or is this merely your own personal view of things?


Regards,
rfg


P.S.  No, I am _not_ asking all of these questions to be annoying, obtuse,
or pin-headed.  I am looking at various sets of facts with respect to the
specific IP blocks I posted about, some of which may conform to policy,
and others of which may not.  You've effectively asked me what I think
is wrong.  In response, I've simply asked you to define your terms, pre-
ferably with reference to actual policy documents and not merely your
intuition about what ``feels'' right or wrong to you personally.