Re: [anti-spam-wg@localhost] Contacts

[Martin Neitzel <]

[Please bear with me:  I am quite new to the spam-wg list, too (since
RIPE-43 last September).]

> Thanks for flagging this; I will endeavor to clarify in the next
> draft that I envision cleanup fees (not fines) imposed only 
> against refractory spammer customers of service providers by 
> the service providers themselves.    The RIR sanction is simply
> withdrawal of assigned IP address space from anti-social registrants.
> ("Son, if you don't drive responsibly, I'm taking away the car keys". 
> This definitely works; every parent understands why and how.)

It is my impression that things get more and more intermixed here and
beyond what der Mouse intended in first place.  The way I understood
him was not asking that the RIPE penalizes some LIR because of spam.
The question was, paraphrased:

	A LIR should be responsible for accurate contact info for both
	its customer and itself.  A RIR should be able to enforce this.

which would not be spam issue at all but a general lir-wg issue.

The RIPE gives already the possibilty to file external complaints against
LIRs, see http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/auditing.html.  While this
procedure is mainly concerned about fair address assignments, "database
consistency" is explicitly one of the issues being checked.  From
"4.1 Principles":

	Database Consistency

	 1. Is the information stored in the RIPE database concerning
	 the assignments within Registry's allocation correct (separate
	 up-to-date entries pointing to all individual customer
	 assignments)?

I think this answers a few of the previous questions.  The penalty for
violations is a lowered assignment window, which should be at least an
quite effective lesson.

								Martin