[anti-abuse-wg] RIPE policy

Hi,

On Wed, Mar 09, 2011 at 05:03:40PM +0530, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
[..]
> in this discussion - which is about trying to ensure that spammers
> don't get /32 and larger v6 netblocks with the same ease they're
> acquiring /15s and /16s.

This is about the gist of the current dispute, I'd say.

As long as "the spammers" are providing correct corporate documents, and
operate within their legal framework, I don't see any way to *deny* them
IPv4/IPv6 addresses.  "Sending lots of mail" might be a perfectly
legitimate business in some country in the RIPE NCC service region, and
as such, "need to use IP addresses for my legitimate business" is 
appropriate for a needs-based allocation system...

"Some people do not like what other people do with their addresses" is not
something the RIPE NCC can operate on - the RIRs (have to) operate on 
documented need, not on reputation.

Now, faked identity data, faked corporate documents, a judge that decides
that a given entity is violating the law - that's sufficient, of course,
as can be seen in the NCC draft document about closures.

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