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

If it weren't effectively property there wouldn't be firms listing large blocks of v4 space as an asset while going out of business, and there wouldn't be brokers specializing in acquiring and reselling this space.  And yet in the RIR paperwork this is a simple reassignment of a netblocks registration.

--srs

________________________________
From: anti-abuse-wg <anti-abuse-wg-bounces at ripe.net> on behalf of Töma Gavrichenkov <ximaera at gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, May 18, 2019 5:21 AM
To: Ronald F. Guilmette
Cc: anti-abuse-wg at ripe.net
Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-04 New Policy Proposal (Validation of "abuse-mailbox")

On Sat, May 18, 2019 at 1:13 AM Ronald F. Guilmette
<rfg at tristatelogic.com> wrote:
> [..] IPv4 real estate

IP addresses are not property. Thinking otherwise results in
hilariously bad engineering practices (and, in turn, hardly any better
policy proposals).

Do not do so.

--
Töma

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/anti-abuse-wg/attachments/20190518/d97e7c0b/attachment.html>