[anti-abuse-wg] New Abuse Information on RIPE NCC Website

Ronald F. Guilmette wrote, On 20/06/2013 21:26:
> In message <51C2F0A3.8040302 at heanet.ie>,
> Brian Nisbet <brian.nisbet at heanet.ie> wrote:
>
>> I'm going to snip a lot of this mail, but there's a core issue I'd like
>> to address.
>>
>>> Now, imagine for a moment that The Duchy of Grand Fenwick (google it) has
>>> just passed a law _requiring_ all of its citizens to spam.  What is RIPE
>>> going to do?  Issue each citizen of Grand Fenwick his or her own /24?
>>> In short, at what point does respect for the individuality and authority
>>> of the constituent nations and municipalities of the entire RIPE region
>>> cross over into unambiguous lunacy?
>>
>> It's an interesting hypothetical, certainly. There are a number of
>> possible options. The first is that the EU, or just the Netherlands,
>> became aware of this and said "These people are bad, EU companies may
>> not trade with them". The RIPE NCC operates under Dutch law, so they
>> would be forced to stop doing business with those people.
>
> A highly unlikely scenario, I think you will agree.

Not unlikely at all. As the last sentence of that paragraph says, it 
happened recently in real life.

>> The second may be that while these companies may be legitimate
>> businesses the NCC is aware of the local law and says, "Ah, no, we know,
>> for a fact, that you are mandated to use these resources for network
>> abuse, therefore your application is invalid."
>
> Again, based upon the current available evidence, also a highly unlikely
> scenario.

Less likely, certainly, but we're talking in deep hypotheticals here.

>> The third option may be that the law is passed, the resources are handed
>> out and the RIPE community, so incensed by this, writes a policy that
>> allows for far more invasive deregistration and closure steps and the
>> membership of the NCC signs off on this. It would be... fun (fcvo fun)
>> to watch and I suspect Nigel may cry.
>
> I'm not even sure which specific Nigel you are referring to, but I for one
> could live with that.

Ah, sorry, Nigel Titley, the Chairman of the Executive Board of the NCC.

Also, and I know I've said this several times before, there is nothing 
stopping a member (or members) of the community from writing such a 
proposal right now.

>> Of course in amongst all of this I would suspect if the resources were
>> handed out, there would be a lot of depeering and null routing going on
>> in relation to the poor, forced-to-spam, citizens of the Grand Duchy. :)
>
> Once again, based upon the available evidence, I would claim that it
> would in fact be improbable that any substantial amount of deppeering
> and/or null routing would occur, in practice.  It is a classic "trajedy
> of the commons" problem, and no operator would wish to have to explain
> to its user base why they, end end lusers, can no longer send e-mail to
> their cousins in Grand Fenwick.

I'm not sure, Spamhaus were quite happy to block Latvia for a far 
smaller reason. I think if it was a mandated activity for all citizens 
the reaction of the international community might be interesting.

Brian