[members-discuss] Feedback Requested: RIPE NCC Broker List

Hello list,

As one of the brokers on the list since 2013, I have watched the list grow
along with the spam abuse. 

I am also a resource holder who receives solicitations on email addresses I
only use for POCs on address blocks. I have replied to brokers who have thus
solicited me, and accused them of improper use of Whois for marketing. But
they told me they did not scrape addresses from Whois, they simply purchased
a list of email addresses with unknown provenance.

It's probably true, and provides a defense of sorts. They aren't spamming,
they are targeted-marketing using available mailing lists from commercial
entities. They point the finger at the list providers.  

It's a weak defense, and is there really a line between targeted-marketing
and spam? 

In terms of broker self-regulation, there have been fitful attempts to
organize for that purpose, but I don't see that in the offing.

I vote to keep the broker list, have RIPE be more aggressive and public in
delisting spammers, and urge people not to do business with spammers as the
best way forward.  We see value in being on the list for so many years, we
get some business from it, but because we are among the brokers who behave,
we also have incentive to see the miscreants removed.

Regards
Mike Burns
IPTrading.com





-----Original Message-----
From: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net> On Behalf Of Andy
Smith
Sent: Thursday, December 19, 2019 5:01 AM
To: members-discuss at ripe.net
Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Feedback Requested: RIPE NCC Broker List

Hi Christian,

On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 10:17:54AM +0100, Christian Kaufmann wrote:
> Removing the list is straightforward and would spare the RIPE NCC a 
> few headaches. However, it is worth considering whether the current 
> model provides some incentive for brokers to play by the rules and 
> what might happen if this incentive is gone.

How about keep the list but amend the Recognised IPv4 Transfer Broker
Agreement to explicitly mention acceptable use of the RIPE database¹, and
also that breach of these terms shall result in immediate removal from the
list for a period of (for example) 3 months and a fee for re-admittance to
the list to cover the time spent by RIPE staff in investigating any
complaints? Then force the entire current list onto the new terms after 30
days.

There is clearly value to brokers in being on this list.

There is clearly value to the RIPE community in knowing that a broker is not
in persistent breach of community norms.

Having such a list without enforcing rules makes the list worthless, and
that is the state we are currently in, since right now the document states
that brokers must obey policies yet several brokers do not do so and remain
on the list until there is a major outcry against them.

Actually investigating complaints and enforcing the policy will take
resources which is why I suggest that brokers who break the rules pay for
that activity. If robust enforcement of the Recognised IPv4 Broker Agreement
is not going to take place then I think there should not be such a thing,
i.e. abolish the list.

I would not suggest changing the current situation where being initially
added to the list is free, since this might give the impression that RIPE is
evaluating these applications in some way.

Cheers,
Andy

¹ The document already does state that brokers shall adhere to RIPE
  policies and procedures, but perhaps worth being explicit in this
  case since it does seem to be the most common complaint.

--
https://bitfolk.com/ -- No-nonsense VPS hosting

_______________________________________________
members-discuss mailing list
members-discuss at ripe.net
https://mailman.ripe.net/
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/mike%40iptrading.com