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

Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote on 30/04/2020 13:42:
> 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.

You're putting the car before the horse.  You're assuming that the RIPE 
NCC has a right to tell organisations what they can or cannot do with 
their addresses.  Why do you think they do? And under what 
circumstances?  And if they did have this right, why would you think 
that this right wouldn't come with the obligation to enforce this, and 
to assume liability in the case where they couldn't enforce it?  Serge 
is correct to state that rights always come with responsibilities - 
they're different sides of the same coin.

This is what concerns me about the proposals that have been put in front 
of AAWG - there's very little acknowledgement on the part of the 
proposers that there would be substantial downstream consequences if 
they were adopted.

Nick

> 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).
> 
> --srs