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/anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net/
[anti-abuse-wg] LIR membership, was Policy disallowing spam from RIPE blocks
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] LIR membership, was Policy disallowing spam from RIPE blocks
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] LIR membership
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Suresh Ramasubramanian
ops.lists at gmail.com
Thu Mar 10 15:27:27 CET 2011
There's no question of cartelization here - merely a background check of the sort that any bank carries out when sanctioning a loan. [which is the closest analogy I can find to an RIR being a custodian of, and allocating IP addresses to its members] On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 6:56 PM, Florian Weimer <fweimer at bfk.de> wrote: > It's difficult to introduce the right level of barriers because we > need to walk a fine line between preventing devaluation of RIPE > address space and forming a cartel which excludes potential > competitors. > -- Suresh Ramasubramanian (ops.lists at gmail.com)
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] LIR membership, was Policy disallowing spam from RIPE blocks
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] LIR membership
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]