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

*"If this restaurant were the only source of food in a region, it would
damn well be illegal to refuse service no matter how (or if) the client is
dressed.  "*

and so should not being able to access the restaurant at all because
someone is conducting a DDoS on the front door and flooding you with
advertisements because some idiot is too lazy to check their abuse mailbox
once a year.

--

On Thu, Apr 30, 2020 at 11:01 PM Sascha Luck [ml] <aawg at c4inet.net> wrote:

> On Thu, Apr 30, 2020 at 12:42:09PM +0000, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
> >RIPE NCC need not decide whether a behaviour is legal or not in order to
> prohibit use of resources that it allocates for such behaviour.
> >
> >Wearing a T-shirt, shorts and flip flops is perfectly legal and yet you
> can be refused entry into a fancy restaurant if you wear them.
> >
> >Nobody gets to sue the restaurant for refusing admission by claiming that
> tshirts and flip flops are perfectly legal attire, and even nudity is legal
> in some parts of Europe (German topless and nude beaches say).
>
> If this restaurant were the only source of food in a region, it
> would damn well be illegal to refuse service no matter how (or
> if) the client is dressed.
>
> Why are we havijg thjis discussion yet again?
>
> rgds,
> Sascha Luck
>
> >
> >--srs
> >________________________________
> >From: Nick Hilliard <nick at foobar.org>
> >Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2020 5:43:04 PM
> >To: Suresh Ramasubramanian <ops.lists at gmail.com>
> >Cc: 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 30/04/2020 01:58:
> >> Why would I ask about something I am posting as an individual in my
> >> personal capacity?
> >
> >because your day job involves abuse / security and in that capacity you
> >may have access to good quality legal resources.
> >
> >> 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.
> >
> >Couple of general observations:
> >
> >- internet abuse is a specific instance of general societal abuse. It's
> >a complex problem and one where punishment / the threat of punishment is
> >one of many methods of handling it, and arguably not one of the better
> >ones from a general application point of view.
> >
> >- The RIPE NCC is not constituted to evaluate what is and isn't legal in
> >the 75+ countries that it services.  E.g. should it revoke numbering
> >resources due to CSAM because that's illegal in NL?  What about
> >blasphemous material, which is such a no-no in several other service
> >countries that it attracts capital punishment?  It's a difficult
> >proposition to suggest that the RIPE NCC should start getting into the
> >business of evaluating what is and isn't abuse.
> >
> >- we already have structures in place to handle evaluation of what
> >constitutes acceptable or unacceptable behaviour.  The international
> >nature of the internet has strained this to the point where it often
> >doesn't work.
> >
> >- there's a consistent undercurrent of thought here of feeling that
> >because other societal mechanisms for controlling abuse have not stopped
> >abuse on the internet, that the RIPE NCC is obliged to act.  This
> >assumption needs to be questioned.
> >
> >- almost all of the policy proposals in AAWG over the last several years
> >have been aimed at using the RIPE number registry as a social behaviour
> >enforcement mechanism.  There are other ways of handling social
> >behaviour issues, e.g. standards creation + compliance, community
> >forums, etc, etc, etc.
> >
> >- complex problems aren't amenable to simple fixes.
> >
> >- the primary concern expressed by the people I've talked to in law
> >enforcement is: "where should the warrant be served?"
> >
> >- the RIPE NCC operates in a complex legal environment.  There's a
> >substantial risk that the types of proposals that are being pushed in
> >AAWG would be found to be illegal and would open the organisation up to
> >damages or prosecution if applied (e.g shutting down a company because
> >they insisted on using a web form instead of SMTP for handling abuse
> >reports).  Alex de Joode's emails in the last round of discussion
> >indicated some of the difficulties involved here.
> >
> >Nothing in any of this invalidates the frustration that everyone has for
> >continued problems relating to fraud and abuse.
> >
> >Nick
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/anti-abuse-wg/attachments/20200430/7c77abe7/attachment.html>