[anti-abuse-wg] Allocation of number resources

In message <51151006.3070401 at heanet.ie>, 
Brian Nisbet <brian.nisbet at heanet.ie> wrote:

>On 07/02/2013 20:05, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
>> Does the charter of this group include, or conversely, fail to include
>> that the group can, should, and will advocate for the denial of resources
>> _generally_ to those who abuse the Internet?
>
>The reclamation of resources is not specifically stated in the charter. 
>Of course, should the WG will it, the charter can always be re-examined. 

What would be the process for initiating such a change?

>However the group has had multiple interactions with the NCC in regards 
>to the closing of LIRs and the reclamation of resources.

So, if I have understood you, you are saying that this WG has already been
advocating for the denial of resources, generally, to those who abuse the
Internet, correct?

>and the final document is here:
>
>https://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-517

It would appear that a newer revision of this document exists:

https://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-541

I am studying it with more than a little facination.

Already, my attention has been drawn to two specific segments of this
document:

   B.1.1.b  Invalidity of original allocation/assignment criteria

     Internet number resources are allocated/assigned based on a specific
     need. When the original technical requirements or the business purpose
     for the use of the Internet number resources change, the allocation/
     assignment becomes invalid. If the RIPE NCC notices any change in the
     original technical criteria or the original business purposes for
     using the Internet number resources, the RIPE NCC is authorised to
     deregister the relevant Internet number resources.

   B.1.1.e  Fraudulent request

     If a Member has submitted a fraudulent request for an allocation or
     an Independent resource (for example, by providing incorrect purpose/
     need or falsified information about the network, etc.), the RIPE NCC
     will deregister the relevant records.

Personally, I have slightly more than a passing familiarity with U.S. law,
and I am aware that within U.S. law, even tiny details (i.e. individual words)
can make a great difference to interpretation.  Thus, I am forced to ask if
the difference in language between the two sections above was/is deliberate
or not.  On the one hand, the first section says that "...RIPE NCC is
authorised to deregister..." while on the other hand the second section
says that "... RIPE NCC will deregister...".  The latter is obviously
stronger than the former.  Was that deliberate or inadvertant?

(Note that this difference in language is mirrored again in sections
B.1.2.c and B.1.2.f.)

I am also curious about this passage from B.1.1.b:  "If the RIPE NCC notices
any change in the original technical criteria or the original business
purposes for using the Internet number resources...". I gather that the
purpose of the online web reporting form I have heard tell about is
supposed to be a way in which random citizens, such as myself, can cause
or induce RIPE NCC to "notice" that a given assigneee is not using its
number resources in conformance with "the original technical criteria or
the original business purposes".  Is that correct?

Assming so, could someone please send me the URL of that again.  Thanks.


Regards,
rfg


P.S.  Regarding the earlier discussion as to publication of all reports
made to RIPE NCC via that form... yes... I see now how that could be
invaluable.  Without that, the reports could easily fall into a black
hole, never to be heard from again, _even_ in cases where Sections B.1.1.e
and B.1.2.f of the above document seem to _require_ action on the part of
RIPE NCC.