RE: Commecial vs fairness (was: spam support)

[<]

On 21 Feb leo vegoda wrote:

>
> While this thread was previously about RIPE NCC being asked to enforce
> an AUP of some kind WRT spam and network abuse it seems like
> you're now
> morphing the request to include a further enlargement of the NCC's
> remit.
>

I didn't realize committing fraud or other illegal acts was not 'network
abuse'!? BTW this thread got morphed to child porn earlier, so I'm not the
one pushing the envelope here :)

Abusive email, mailbombing, committing fraud, hacking, etc. are all network
abuse. If RIPE imposes an AUP 'WRT spam and network abuse' then I don't see
why you would want to make a specific exclusion for credit card fraud or any
other illegal acts on the basis that the cops deal with that stuff.

> It seems odd to request a Registry to become a police force, a court
> and to then enforce its own judgements. Or perhaps I misunderstood you.

Most networks include 'illegal acts' in their AUPs. It doesn't make them a
police force or vigilante. I'm just suggesting that if RIPE does impose an
AUP (and maybe it transpires that it can't), it should impose similar terms
to those that most networks already post. Most networks won't need to change
their posted AUPs, since network abuse is banned anyway. But it might mean
that there is some sanction if they don't enforce them.

Paul