[anti-abuse-wg] Allocation of number resources

Hi,

On Thu, Feb 07, 2013 at 08:06:41PM +0530, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
> On Thursday, February 7, 2013, Gert Doering wrote:
> 
> > I think we perfectly agree that *criminals* should have taken their
> > address space away, and that's what the NCC does.  Now, "criminals" - and
> > this is where we know to disagree - are not folks that send e-mails that
> > other folks do not like, but folks where an instrument of the law has
> > decided "they are criminals" (LEOs or courts).
> 
> Ah, so the difference between spammers and other forms of online criminals
> like, say, botmasters

Just an example, which makes it fairly obvious that a "criminal" to some
is not a "criminal" to another.  I neither like spammers nor botmasters,
but the legal system in their country might make a difference.

> I do however put it to you that there are plenty of email marketers who
> acquire IP space under their own business names, without having to create
> an endless series of shell companies to acquire outsize IP allocations.
> 
> Does that mean RIPE NCC might want to, for example, have the dutch
> regulator that has a remit on antispam, OPTA, take a stand in this matter,
> if you are that concerned with penalizing genuine criminals rather than
> "people who send email that I don't like"?  An interesting idea.

The stance of the RIPE NCC is clear: if a judge decides that someone is
a criminal, they are.  Otherwise, they are not, and there is no lever to
take away their addresses just by someone calling them a criminal.  This
is all documented, and the link to the RIPE NCC LIR closure document has
been posted here by Athina before.

This can be changed, of course - the RIPE NCC operates under a policy
framework set by its constituency.  Unfortunately, this constituency has
been completely unable to agree on a definition of "abuse" (in a "checklist" 
sense: someone has to take this definition, apply it to a certain case, 
and come to a clear conclusion).  So that's what we have: criminal by law,
lying to the NCC as far as LIR registration details go, or no reason to 
withdraw IP address allocations.

Gert Doering
        -- NetMaster
-- 
have you enabled 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
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 306 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/anti-abuse-wg/attachments/20130207/eaf570fd/attachment.sig>