[anti-abuse-wg] New Abuse Regulations

Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
> In message <51CC5148.902 at powerweb.de>,
> Frank Gadegast <ripe-anti-spam-wg at powerweb.de> wrote:
>
>> I personally would start at the other end and force Microsoft
>> legally to only have PCs connected to the Internet that
>> have an AntiVirus solution installed and running ...
>
> There is a simpler solution that nobody ever talks about because it is
> not politically viable.  (Translation:  Too many campaign contributors
> with too much money are against it.)
>
> Ths simple solution is just to withdraw the existing specific exemptions
> to product liability laws that allow Microsoft and other software vendors
> to ship dangerous crap to people and yet never get sued for doing so.
> (This is a special exemption that applies to essentially no other cate-
> gory of product.)

What about a RIR regulation to ensure that address space is only
used for purposes not harming anybody ?
That resource holders are responsible for the abuse coming
out of their networks ?

And a framework to withdraw address space, if there is whatever
evidence that the resource holder is not doing enough to stop it ?

I think this is the main question in wich direction we all
should go after the abuse-c is in place. Its nice, that there
will be contact now for every address space, but now
we should talk about responsibilies of resource holders
and procedures to control them.

For a start Im really interested how the current revoking
process at RIPE NCC actually looks like and examples
how this process was actually used in the past ...
I might have missed that, but maybe that was never
comunicated to the list in detail.


Kind regards, Frank

>
>
> Regards,
> rfg
>
>