[anti-abuse-wg] working in new version of 2019-04 (Validation of "abuse-mailbox")

Folks, 

While not attempting to discuss the merits or otherwise of a reputation system (other than the fact I've seen many of them proposed and we still have lots of problems), I would say one thing on your comments below, Ronald.

The RIPE NCC service region is not just the EU, it isn't just the continent of Europe. It includes many other countries such as Russia and the entirety of the Middle East. With 70+ countries involved it is a lot harder to do something that is acceptable everywhere, even while the NCC itself is governed under Dutch law.

Just a useful reminder.

Brian

Brian Nisbet 
Service Operations Manager
HEAnet CLG, Ireland's National Education and Research Network
1st Floor, 5 George's Dock, IFSC, Dublin D01 X8N7, Ireland
+35316609040 brian.nisbet at heanet.ie www.heanet.ie
Registered in Ireland, No. 275301. CRA No. 20036270

> -----Original Message-----
> From: anti-abuse-wg <anti-abuse-wg-bounces at ripe.net> On Behalf Of
> Ronald F. Guilmette
> Sent: Wednesday 15 January 2020 01:52
> To: anti-abuse-wg at ripe.net
> Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] working in new version of 2019-04 (Validation of
> "abuse-mailbox")
> 
> In message <be337bb7-211e-c377-8e97-8e16696eb3d7 at heeg.de>,
> Hans-Martin Mosner <hmm at heeg.de> wrote:
> 
> >While this would probably paint a pretty solid picture of which network
> >o= perators can be trusted and which can't, there's another point
> >besides your valid concern about abusers gaming the=
> > system: Whoever publishes the results of such user ratings would most
> >likely expose themselves to litigious lawsuits, w= hich neither you nor
> >me nor RIPE NCC really wants to do.
> 
> That comment, and that concern, certainly does not seem to apply in any
> country in which either eBay or TripAdvisor operate.
> 
> Do you folks on your side of the pond not receive eBay?  Are you not able to
> view Tripadvisor.Com?
> 
> Here in this country (U.S.) there are actually -three- separate and clearly
> discrenable legal protections that would cover and that do cover
> circumstances like this.  In no particular order, they are:
> 
>      (*)  The First Amendment.
> 
>      (*)  47 USC 230(c)(1)
> 
>      (*)  47 USC 230(c)(2)(B)
> 
> Ref:
> https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww
> .law.cornell.edu%2Fuscode%2Ftext%2F47%2F230&data=02%7C01%7Cb
> rian.nisbet%40heanet.ie%7C4346c5c89cb4424339be08d7995da2a1%7Ccd9e82
> 69dfb648e082538b7baf8d3391%7C0%7C0%7C637146499755991832&sdat
> a=JcDbohTPkHP6aa4TkUU%2BL%2FswCYndB5tol4HPXak2M9Y%3D&res
> erved=0
> 
> The middle one is actually the first-order go-to provision for situations like
> this, and provides for quick dismissal for any silly cases brought against *me*
> for something that *you* have said on some discussion or review web site
> that I just happen to provide electricity, connectivity, and CPU cycles for.
> 
> One would hope that european law might have some counterpart for that,
> but I confess that I really have no idea about that, one way or the other.
> 
> So, um, is the european continent utterly devoid of any and all web sites
> where reviews can or do appear?  Does europe have its own GDPR
> mandated Great Firewall to keep the evil likes of eBay and TripAdvisor out?
> 
> Or were you, Hans-Martin, just saying that in europe, free speech is reserved
> only for those who can afford it, and who conveniently have hoards of
> corporate lawyers covering their backsides?
> 
> Asking seriously, because I don't know the answer.  I'm just puzzled by this
> whole thing, and this concern about lawsuits.
> 
> 
> Regards,
> rfg