[anti-abuse-wg] anti-abuse-wg Digest, Vol 17, Issue 11

The thing is, if such an association as you describe is given a fiduciary
role, as a trustee of IP addresses, not caring whether the member it
enforces policy against is an extra large LIR or some small outfit with a
/20 PI / PA space should be a given. As should a readiness to enforce their
policies instead of declining to become the "Internet police", which itself
is one of the worst cliches ever.

On Monday, January 21, 2013, Shane Kerr wrote:

> Karl-Josef,
>
> On Sunday, 2013-01-20 12:55:09 +0100,
> Karl-Josef Ziegler <kjz at gmx.net <javascript:;>> wrote:
> > > Thinking about it, just in the last day or two I've realized that
> > > RIPE, ARIN, IANA, ICANN, and all such authorities are in many ways
> > > quite analogous to our Federal Reserve here in the United States. In
> > > both cases, the entities have much authority and are widely
> > > perceived as having charters that somehow commit them to pursuit of
> > > the public good.  But in both cases, the reality is rather
> > > different... these entities are in fact merely commercial
> > > associations of business interests that are pledged, if not by law
> > > then by contract, to never reveal even a smidgeon of their
> > > commercial member's dirty laundry to any "outsider", and their
> > > iron-clad commitment to this goal always takes precedence over any
> > > other consideration.
> >
> > I agree. The main goal of these organisations for me seems to be not
> > protecting public goods but protecting the commercial interests of
> > their members. So they aren't nonprofit organizations?
>
> My take on it is that there are basically two kinds of nonprofit
> organizations:
>
> 1. Organizations that vaccinate orphans, dig wells to provide clean
>    water, investigate corruption, and so on. These are non-profit
>    because they are fundamentally engaged in activities that cost money
>    instead of earning it.
>
> 2. Organizations that provide a needed "neutral ground" for businesses
>    to operate, such as standards making bodies or consortia managing
>    when and where cables can be laid down. These are non-profit because
>    the profit motive would create a conflict of interest with the
>    businesses they were created to serve.
>
> There are other organizations that don't fit this, like credit unions
> (non-profit banks), but I think it covers the majority. In general the
> first type of non-profit is poor and the second type is well-off.
>
> The thing about the RIPE NCC and the other RIRs is that the world has
> for some reason assumed that they fit into category #1 ("they exist for
> the good of the Internet!"). I would argue that the RIPE NCC and the
> other RIRs are very firmly in category #2 ("we are an industry
> association").
>
> It is a pity that none of the RIRs have never done anything to change
> this idea, but I can understand why not. Would you rather be an
> organization that shuffles paperwork or one that is there to make the
> world a better place? :)
>
> Anyway, I'll reply to the notion of opening up abuse investigations in
> a mail to Sander's specific proposal.
>
> Cheers,
>
> --
> Shane
>
>

-- 
--srs (iPad)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/anti-abuse-wg/attachments/20130121/07283f0d/attachment.html>