This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net/
[anti-abuse-wg] 2019-04 Discussion Phase (Validation of "abuse-mailbox")
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-04 Discussion Phase (Validation of "abuse-mailbox")
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-04 Discussion Phase (Validation of "abuse-mailbox")
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Arash Naderpour
arash.naderpour at gmail.com
Thu Apr 30 16:10:05 CEST 2020
Can NCC members decide to stop following ripe policies one day? Regards, Arash On Fri, 1 May 2020, 00:02 No No, <no0484985 at gmail.com> wrote: > *>> You're assuming that the RIPE NCC has a right to tell organisations > what they can or cannot do with their addresses.* > > It's not *their* addresses, it's RIPE's addresses, which they allocated. > It's not *their* resources that are abused, it's the peer enabled > relationship that carries their bull crap across networks. > > If they want to set up a computer in a field surrounded by cows, and it > sends spam to itself or DDoS itself, that's fine. > > ---- > > > > > > > > On Thu, Apr 30, 2020 at 11:57 PM Nick Hilliard <nick at foobar.org> wrote: > >> 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 >> >> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: </ripe/mail/archives/anti-abuse-wg/attachments/20200501/66b4a208/attachment.html>
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-04 Discussion Phase (Validation of "abuse-mailbox")
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-04 Discussion Phase (Validation of "abuse-mailbox")
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]