[dp-tf] Quadlogy of person proposals

Although it is very late to respond, but still...

Leo Vegoda wrote:

> Denis,
> 
> On 17 Jul 2007, at 15:59, Denis Walker wrote:
> 
> [...]
> 
>> I see some conflict here between your right not to be identified  and my
>> right to know who is spamming me. Maybe I want to complain directly to
>> the spammer. But if I have to go to the ISP and ask them to  identify the
>> end user they may just say "sorry we can't give out confidential
>> customer information". Then I have to go to court of the police to  even
>> write a letter of complaint to the spammer.
>>
>> The RIPE DB is a registry of IP Address information. If we hide the
>> bottom layer we change the whole concept.
> 
> 
> That is a fine principle but probably doesn't fit well with a world 
> where most consumer network operators are not in a position to fix  the
> problem. If a consumer's machine is part of a 'botnet' and  sending spam
> then calling them on the telephone and complaining is  unlikely to be
> effective. Network operations intelligence sits in ISP  and (some)
> enterprise networks most of the time, not consumer end  sites. As such,
> that is the contact information that is needed in the  RIPE database.

This is actually where the irt: object should come into the picture.

It was designed, on purpose, to support that split of interests or
responsibilities. Using irt:, an ISP could *very effectively* declare
itself "responsible" for operational and security/abuse complaints -
while still having the fact registered that a particular address block
has been assigned to a customer (and as such not being counted as a
self-assignment).

Btw, for PA space, we can even support a "search list" or "escalation
path" by registering an irt: for the different blocks in the hierarchy :-)

> If the problem with going through the police or the courts is that  they
> take too long then the police and courts need to improve their 
> interfaces to allow efficient handling of complaints about illegal 
> activity.

Dream on... :-) But yes, I agree, in principle.

> Putting the consumer's contact information in the RIPE 
> database is very unlikely to help resolve this kind of problem and 
> might even encourage vigilantism.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Leo

Wilfried