[anti-abuse-wg] Enabling community self-help?

Florian,

On Thursday, 2012-03-29 21:34:44 +0200,
Florian Weimer <fw at deneb.enyo.de> wrote:
> > Plus it is hard to get the RIPE NCC membership to support mechanisms
> > which cost them money and limit their freedoms.
> 
> Is it?  As a first approximation, RIPE NCC only executes the policies
> set by the RIPE community.  Their function is mostly bureaucratic, so
> as an organization, RIPE NCC inevitably has a tendency to acquire
> additional responsibilities, diversify and grow.  This is especially
> important because we're approaching the end of address scarcity.

It might be a failure of imagination on my part, but I think that
attempting to prevent "bad guys" from getting addresses involves extra
work to prove somehow that they companies not criminal. I don't see a
lot of call by LIRs to increase the amount of paperwork and delay when
dealing with the RIPE NCC. :)
 
> > Maybe it makes sense to make something like a web forum for each
> > allocated resource, or perhaps for the organization responsible for
> > each.
> 
> We'd have to find someone host such a site in the U.S. because
> otherwise, the hoster will be responsible for such user-generated
> content.  There are also privacy issues.

Interesting, because we have sites that review online resellers here in
Holland, and that seems to work somehow. So maybe this is possible in
some countries in the RIPE region too?
 
> Alternatively, with heavy moderation, the net result would not be that
> much different from Spamhaus' ROKSO list, would it?

Does ROKSO cover any issue, or just spam? Certainly there is nothing
preventing anyone who can afford a VPS from setting up some reputation
site, but if it was RIPE NCC-hosted it might have a different level of
gravitas.

Cheers,

--
Shane