[anti-abuse-wg] 2019-04 New Policy Proposal (Validation of "abuse-mailbox")

​"a case where the resources are withdrawn based only on the fact there was no reply to the abuse-mailbox validation email"


You should high light the word 'only'. 

The ARIN case has nothing to do with -only- not answering the validation mail. It actually attacks a business model build on providing a cybercrime infrastructure. The proposed policy will not be able to accomplish this.
​-- 
IDGARA | Alex de Joode | +31651108221


On Fri, 17-05-2019 7h 47min, Suresh Ramasubramanian <ops.lists at gmail.com> wrote:
> 










How was ARIN able to reclaim 750k IPs showing fraud including shell company setup then? The USA is if anything even more litigious than Europe is.

> 

You also go to court with "clean hands", so if the invalid abuse contact is also accompanied by a proliferation of malware etc a judge may not react the same way they would when faced with a situation where the ripe contact was
 sick, on vacation or just plain negligent.

> 


> 

--srs


 



From: anti-abuse-wg <anti-abuse-wg-bounces at ripe.net> on behalf of Alex de Joode <alex at idgara.nl>
> 
Sent: Friday, May 17, 2019 11:02 AM
> 
To: anti-abuse-wg at ripe.net
> 
Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-04 New Policy Proposal (Validation of "abuse-mailbox")

 






​​I beg to differ.


> 

The ripe membership set's the policy;
Ripe enforces the policy;
If a ripe member has it's resources withdrawn due the policy and the enforcement of the policy, the ripe member can go to court in The Netherlands (see contact between member and ripe);
The Amsterdam court will apply the proportionality test to a case where the resources are withdrawn based only on the fact there was no reply to the abuse-mailbox validation email;
The Amsterdam court will find this action is unreasonable;
The Amsterdam court will force ripe to re-instate the resources;
The Amsterdam court will be liable for any and all damages the ripe member suffered.

> 

​-- 

IDGARA | Alex de Joode | +31651108221




> 
On Fri, 17-05-2019 4h 49min, Fi Shing <phishing at storey.xxx> wrote:
> 
> 

This "proportionality" test you speak of,
 
has as much relevance to the regulating of internet resources, as "freedom of speech" does to regulating internet forum membership
 
 
(no relevance at all).
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

> 
--------- Original Message ---------

Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-04 New Policy Proposal (Validation of "abuse-mailbox")
> 
From: "Alex de Joode" <alex at idgara.nl>
> 
Date: 5/16/19 4:56 pm
> 
To: "JORDI PALET MARTINEZ" <jordi.palet at consulintel.es>
> 
Cc: anti-abuse-wg at ripe.net
> 

> 
​On Fri, 17-05-2019 1h 45min, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via anti-abuse-wg <anti-abuse-wg at ripe.net> wrote:
> 
> 

Hi Nick,
> 

> 
[..]
> 

> 
Anyone failing in repetitive ocassions to comply with policies is subjected to further NCC scrutiny, including account closure. This is a different policy already in place. If we don't like that, we should change that policy, but then we don't need policies
 anymore. Policies are the rules for the community to be respected by all, and not having an administrative enforcement by the NCC is the wilde west.
It is an illusion to think ripe can suspend/withdraw resources if an organisation does not reply to a abuse validation request. That simply will not pass the proportionality test needed under Dutch law. So you will have no recourse. (Only if you can prove
 the entity has registered with false creditials (Due Diligence by new members takes care of this) -and- the entity is active in a criminal enterprise, you might have a case) 
 
Cheers,
Alex










-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/anti-abuse-wg/attachments/20190517/28594bca/attachment.html>