Re: Commecial vs fairness (was: spam support)

[<]

On Thu, 14 Feb 2002, Clive D.W. Feather wrote:

> That's not the point. If the terms are reasonable *for RIPE's monopoly
> purpose*, then you can enforce them.

Do you think asking AS's to apply border filters, respond to abuse/spam
complaints and to take down child pornography within x hours of them being
notified is unreasonable?

> 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.

As stated before, the additional terms would have to be ones that were
agreed on by a significant percentage of the RIPE membership.  I can't see
many RIPE members signing up to a clause like that.

BTW, you don't need to use Cisco routers to apply border filters.

> 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.

RIPE have a charter which cover a lot more than just allocating IP
addresses.  Why would updating their charter to respond to the changes in
internet be illegal?

> It doesn't matter if you get 95% support, it's still a monopoly.

Welcome to the wonderful world of democracy Clive.

> Tell me, where do I get my IP addresses from if not from RIPE ?

Move to a different continent and use a different RR?  ;-)

Regards,


Rich