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

On Fri, 17 May 2019, Alex de Joode wrote:

> ??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 If a ripe member has it's resources withdrawn due the policy and the enforcement of the policy, the ripe member can go to court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 The Amsterdam court will apply the proportionality test to a case where the resources are withdrawn based only on the fact there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.

Hi,

You mean "The Amsterdam court will rule RIPE NCC is liable for any and 
all damages the ripe member suffered." ???

ps: is there any jurisprudence about what you are describing...?

Carlos



> ?-- 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
> 
> 
>