The thing is, if such an association as you describe is given a fiduciary role, as a trustee of IP addresses, not caring whether the member it enforces policy against is an extra large LIR or some small outfit with a /20 PI / PA space should be a given. As should a readiness to enforce their policies instead of declining to become the "Internet police", which itself is one of the worst cliches ever. On Monday, January 21, 2013, Shane Kerr wrote: <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Karl-Josef, On Sunday, 2013-01-20 12:55:09 +0100, Karl-Josef Ziegler <<a href="javascript:;" onclick="_e(event, 'cvml', 'kjz@gmx.net')">kjz@gmx.net</a>> wrote: > > Thinking about it, just in the last day or two I've realized that > > RIPE, ARIN, IANA, ICANN, and all such authorities are in many ways > > quite analogous to our Federal Reserve here in the United States. In > > both cases, the entities have much authority and are widely > > perceived as having charters that somehow commit them to pursuit of > > the public good. But in both cases, the reality is rather > > different... these entities are in fact merely commercial > > associations of business interests that are pledged, if not by law > > then by contract, to never reveal even a smidgeon of their > > commercial member's dirty laundry to any "outsider", and their > > iron-clad commitment to this goal always takes precedence over any > > other consideration. > > I agree. The main goal of these organisations for me seems to be not > protecting public goods but protecting the commercial interests of > their members. So they aren't nonprofit organizations? My take on it is that there are basically two kinds of nonprofit organizations: 1. Organizations that vaccinate orphans, dig wells to provide clean water, investigate corruption, and so on. These are non-profit because they are fundamentally engaged in activities that cost money instead of earning it. 2. Organizations that provide a needed "neutral ground" for businesses to operate, such as standards making bodies or consortia managing when and where cables can be laid down. These are non-profit because the profit motive would create a conflict of interest with the businesses they were created to serve. There are other organizations that don't fit this, like credit unions (non-profit banks), but I think it covers the majority. In general the first type of non-profit is poor and the second type is well-off. The thing about the RIPE NCC and the other RIRs is that the world has for some reason assumed that they fit into category #1 ("they exist for the good of the Internet!"). I would argue that the RIPE NCC and the other RIRs are very firmly in category #2 ("we are an industry association"). It is a pity that none of the RIRs have never done anything to change this idea, but I can understand why not. Would you rather be an organization that shuffles paperwork or one that is there to make the world a better place? :) Anyway, I'll reply to the notion of opening up abuse investigations in a mail to Sander's specific proposal. Cheers, -- Shane </blockquote> -- --srs (iPad)