[anti-abuse-wg] Legality of proposal (apologies)

As I read the proposal cutting off bogus LIRs seems to be the goal rather than cutting off a legitimate but careless player.  There seem to be quite a few such given the coming wg meeting has a preso on just this topic.

--srs

________________________________
From: anti-abuse-wg <anti-abuse-wg-bounces at ripe.net> on behalf of Carlos Friaças via anti-abuse-wg <anti-abuse-wg at ripe.net>
Sent: Friday, May 17, 2019 3:08 PM
To: Nick Hilliard
Cc: Shane Kerr; anti-abuse-wg at ripe.net
Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Legality of proposal (apologies)


On Fri, 17 May 2019, Nick Hilliard wrote:

> Shane Kerr wrote on 17/05/2019 08:45:
>> All I can say is that the law is stupid then, and it SHOULD allow the
>> proposed policy. ?
>
> fundamentally, it shouldn't. Proportionality is a cornerstone of most legal
> systems - if you don't have proportionality, you end up with tyranny. The
> idea of threatening to cut off a LIR because they haven't updated an abuse
> contact is completely disproportionate to the scale of the policy infraction.

Hi,

It's probably not "haven't updated" but instead "haven't created".

Ideally this would also cover cases where company X deliberately inserts
an e-mail address from someone which has nothing to do with the numbering
resource... at least the legitimate owner of such mailbox should be able
to resort to someone (hopefully not a court!) to have that corrected in
the registry.......

We had that with our postal address from an ARIN member some years ago. :/

Carlos


> Nick
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/anti-abuse-wg/attachments/20190517/68fd5478/attachment.html>