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

Alex,

On 17/05/2019 01.56, Alex de Joode wrote:
> ​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)

(Please read all 3 paragraphs before answering the first one!)

It seems like the RIPE NCC could legitimately claim that being able to 
handle abuse reports is a requirement for receiving any number 
resources. If the procedure for verifying this is reasonable, then I 
don't see why revocation of those resources would be considered 
disproportional.

In any case, any policy proposal receives feasibility feedback from the 
RIPE NCC, who has excellent legal staff. Further, the RIPE NCC has 
resources for external consultation if their in-house legal staff is not 
sufficient to answer any questions about a given proposal.

I don't think we need to be amateur lawyers for this or any other proposal.

Cheers,

--
Shane