[anti-abuse-wg] 2019-04 Discussion Phase (Validation of "abuse-mailbox")

Why would I ask about something I am posting as an individual in my personal capacity?

I see great pains being taken to have NCC stay hands off and arms length from abuse issues at its members. I understand the motivation.

However, being in a fiduciary role - with IPv4 being traded like currency these days the description fits - RIPE NCC can’t not get involved.

I am concerned that this is eventually going to lead to heavy handed state regulation if a regulator gets involved after some particularly egregious misbehaviour by a (hypothetical at this point but the risk exists or might even exist now) shell company that gets itself membership, even LIR status and then uses a large allocation of IPs exclusively for crime.

NCC owes it to the rest of its membership and the internet community at large to take a more active role in this matter.

Though those of us that are saying this are probably voices in the wilderness at this point.

—srs


--srs
________________________________
From: Nick Hilliard <nick at foobar.org>
Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2020 2:16:34 AM
To: Suresh Ramasubramanian <ops.lists at gmail.com>
Cc: Serge Droz <serge.droz at first.org>; anti-abuse-wg at ripe.net <anti-abuse-wg at ripe.net>
Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-04 Discussion Phase (Validation of "abuse-mailbox")

Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote on 29/04/2020 17:26:
> Is there anything that stops NCC from doing additional due diligence
> such as validating abuse issues along with the invalid contact
> information etc, before taking such a decision?

Did you ask your corporate legal counsel for their opinion on how
workable this plan is?

Nick
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/anti-abuse-wg/attachments/20200430/9678df99/attachment.html>