This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/ncc-services-wg@ripe.net/
[ncc-services-wg] [anti-abuse-wg] 2013-01 New Policy Proposal (Openness about Policy Violations)
- Previous message (by thread): [ncc-services-wg] [anti-abuse-wg] 2013-01 New Policy Proposal (Openness about Policy Violations)
- Next message (by thread): [ncc-services-wg] [anti-abuse-wg] 2013-01 New Policy Proposal (Openness about Policy Violations)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Ronald F. Guilmette
rfg at tristatelogic.com
Sun Feb 17 23:57:03 CET 2013
I just wanted to comment briefly on the proposal now under consideration. I would have interjected quite a lot of follow-up comments on all of the comments that have been made here so far about this, but I've been tied up on other critical projects for the past several days. I don't want anybody to get the idea that I don't care about the proposal at hand. I do, passionately, but I have rather a different take on it, I think, than what I've seen expressed by others so far. The point has been made that publishing (or re-publishing) baseless accusations is un-good. There probably won't be a lot of disagreement on that general point. But more generally I think it has to be recognized that when it comes to the dispersal of information... accurate or otherwise... the Internet is, and is likely to remain, very much the Wild Wild West, and in the final analysis, there is not all that much that can be done about most of the baseless slander that occurs on the Internet every day. I'll just cite two cases in point. The first is ripped from recent headlines: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/02/06/go-daddy-sued-over-revenge-porn-site/1897695/ The general opinion among legal experts... with which I concur... is that under current U.S. law GoDaddy, despite having itself hosted a web site featuring "revenge" nude photos of ex-girlfriends, is not in any way liable for that. The ladies who have been offended by the web site in question may indeed have suffered deep anguish, but they will need to seek redress for those grievances elsewhere. Second, I remember clearly that quite a number of years ago now I par- ticipated, along with countless others, in a USENET newsgroup called news.admin.net-abuse.email. Back at that time, one of the most colorful and unambiguously demented denizens of that newsgroup was a fellow going by the name of "Dr. Grubor". So anyway, long story short, Dr. Grubor, publically and in the neswgroup, called me a paedophile. Of course, there was no basis whatsoever for his accusation, and I was understandably outraged. I was preparing to initiate legal action over Dr. Grubor's outrageous slander, and would probably have done so if I had not realized, in sort order, that Dr. Grubor had already accused about 80% of the other newsgroup participants of being paedophiles, before he even got around to calling me one. Given this reality, and that fact that Dr. Grubor's only remaining shreads of credibility were with the small handful of other seriously ill newsgroup participants, in the end I thought better of wasting my time and money pursuing legal damages against a nutcase that no one of any importance took seriously anyway. All the above having been said, there are just two simple points I want to make. First, as illustrated by the above two anecdotes, it isn't really prag- matically possible, here in the "information age", to stop people from spreading hurtful material and/or bald faced lies about one, or about one's company. Second, whereas I agree completely that there should exist, somewhere, an unfiltered uncensored place where people can post what they know, or even what they believe they know about various Internet number resources (and by implication, about the entities to which those have been assigned) I am not persuaded that either RIPE or any other RiR either could be or should be either the sponsors or the adminitsrators of any such web site. Rather, I am coming around to the opinion that this kind of function necessarily must be performed by, and must be under the control of some- one or something that is distinctly _not_ connected, financially or otherwise, to any of the RiRs, to IANA, to ICANN, or to the U.S. Department of Commerce (from which, the authority and the responsibility of all of thes other entities ultimately devolves). I think that this whole discussion (and the proposal at hand) came up, at least in part, because not everyone believes that RIPE is actively policing the resources it is the ultimate steward of, without either fear or favor. Additionally, the completely lack of transparancy with respect to such policing certainly contributes mightily to fostering that exact viewpoint. However I doubt that asking, demaning, or directing RIPE itself to be more transparent about these matters is likely to provide an actual solution to the perceived credibility gap. A reference to foxes and henhouses may be appropriate here. If, at the direction of the membership, RIPE NCC began publishing _some_ information, would anyone ever feel 100% confident that they were publishing _all_ relevant infor- mation? I wouldn't, but then I am suspicious by nature. Separately, there is indeed a legal liability issue inherent in this whole idea that cannot just be swept under the carpet. I rather doubt that there is much in the way of a constituency, within the RIPE membership, that is eager for RIPE NCC to go around wlly-nilly, sticking its neck into the proverbial legal noose by publishing, or re-publishing potentially actionable defamations. Defending the indefensible, perhaps at considerable financial cost, is not something I see as being on either RIPE's or RIPE NCC's agenda anytime soon. Journalism, for better or worse, is just not within the fundamental purpose of these organizations, and I think that it will be hard to find many RIPE member organizations who are eager to have their annual fees increased in order to support a high-priced legal defense team. For the reasons given above, at the present moment I believe that it must necessarily fall to some outside and unrelated person, entity, or organization to publish, without fear or favor, negative information about Internet number resources and the parties to whom those have been assigned. I am currently contemplating whether or not I myself want to be that publisher. So far, I am not favorably disposed to getting involved. The problem is that quite a lot of work would be involved, I think, in order to do a proper job, and I actually had a number of other things that I wanted to do this lifetime. Maybe if I could find two or three willing and able volunteers to help in the construction and deployment of a simple web site... Regards, rfg
- Previous message (by thread): [ncc-services-wg] [anti-abuse-wg] 2013-01 New Policy Proposal (Openness about Policy Violations)
- Next message (by thread): [ncc-services-wg] [anti-abuse-wg] 2013-01 New Policy Proposal (Openness about Policy Violations)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]