Re: Commecial vs fairness (was: spam support)

["Clive D.W. Feather" <]

variable@localhost said:
>> If an ISP can only get IP numbers by signing up to this separate AUP,
>> well, can you spell "abuse of monopoly position" ? Because that's what
>> it is.
> 
> RIPE already has terms and conditions that you have to sign up to if you
> wish to become a LIR.  I'm merely suggesting that it might be worthwhile
> bringing them up to date.  Obviously, with a tougher set of T's & C's RIPE
> would need extra resources to enforce them.

That's not the point. If the terms are reasonable *for RIPE's monopoly
purpose*, then you can enforce them. But a condition that, for example, you
must use Cisco routers would be unreasonable for that purpose, so it's an
abuse of their monopoly.

Rules beyond those necessary to ensure IP addresses are allocated
efficiently are outside their monopoly position. As such, there's a
presumption in (at least) English law that it's illegal.

> I thought RIPE's activities were directed by the membership.  Therefore,
> it would require a significant number of the existing membership to be
> involved before this got anywhere near being implemented.  That doesn't
> sound much like a monopoly to me.

It doesn't matter if you get 95% support, it's still a monopoly. Tell me,
where do I get my IP addresses from if not from RIPE ?

-- 
Clive D.W. Feather  | Work:  clive@localhost   | Tel:  +44 20 8371 1138
Internet Expert     | Home:  clive@localhost  | Fax:  +44 870 051 9937
Demon Internet      | WWW: http://www.davros.org | Mobile: +44 7973 377646
Thus plc            |                            | NOTE: fax number change