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

On Fri, 17 May 2019 20:20:39 -0700
"Ronald F. Guilmette" <rfg at tristatelogic.com> wrote:
> In message
> <CALZ3u+ZoqY19n28-9ZNu8q2O+EZnjGLve1Ri1aCn90ThsrmDzw at mail.gmail.com>
> =?UTF-8?Q?T=C3=B6ma_Gavrichenkov?= <ximaera at gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Sat, May 18, 2019 at 1:13 AM Ronald F. Guilmette
> ><rfg at tristatelogic.com> wrote:  
> >> [..] IPv4 real estate  
> >
mangle your headers much?

rather top post. I think that you are again displaying your ignorance of
the entire "top posting" for and against argument. - Yet, you have an
opinion about it yourself. I will try to help you, although it is
impossible sometimes to address ignorance.

the whole thing about top posting or not, is all about the email
conversation and about quoting and replying to multiple subjects in the
same email thread.

so, here is a working example of such a conversation, edited and
created to illustrate the principles:

>>>123 at example.com said:
>>456 at example.com said:
>789 at example.com said:
>>> I like coffee
>> ooh, me too
> I hate the stuff myself

Now look at your email to the list? Do you see?

anyway, use/get better software or maybe rather top post, if you care.

now, to the IP property thing...

> >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.  
> You are attempting to correct the Wrong Guy my friend.
> "Property" is not a term that *I* personally selected.
> It was mentioned on the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (arin-ppml)
> this week that some of the actual court filings in the suit and<snip>
<snip>

It is you spreading and perpetuating the idea though, on this mailing
list, so I do not understand why you are so scared of owning it.

personally, I think that IP numbers (even ipv6 is finite) are resources
that belong to everyone, but I do believe that even as resources, they
are a form of property. Not intellectual property, but the same type of
property as a crypto currency character string.

bottom line is that insofar as all this relates to abuse, if general
society would view an IP number as property this does affect abuse by
and from an IP number in a number of legal ways as well. It also
becomes much of a political thing as property rights in different RIPE
regions are not exactly the same and even more diversity in other RIR

and, to bring this back to 2019-04 Validation of abuse: imho the 
proposal needs some additional things added and some things better
defined and other things changed...not going to rehash everything as we
have all been reading. So, I am saying that I look forward to the next
version.

Andre