This "proportionality" test you speak of, has as much relevance to the regulating of internet resources, as "freedom of speech" does to regulating internet forum membership (no relevance at all). --------- Original Message --------- Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-04 New Policy Proposal (Validation of "abuse-mailbox") From: "Alex de Joode" <a...@idgara.nl> Date: 5/16/19 4:56 pm To: "JORDI PALET MARTINEZ" <jordi.pa...@consulintel.es> Cc: anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net
On Fri, 17-05-2019 1h 45min, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via anti-abuse-wg <anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net> wrote: Hi Nick, [..] Anyone failing in repetitive ocassions to comply with policies is subjected to further NCC scrutiny, including account closure. This is a different policy already in place. If we don't like that, we should change that policy, but then we don't need policies anymore. Policies are the rules for the community to be respected by all, and not having an administrative enforcement by the NCC is the wilde west. It is an illusion to think ripe can suspend/withdraw resources if an organisation does not reply to a abuse validation request. That simply will not pass the proportionality test needed under Dutch law. So you will have no recourse. (Only if you can prove the entity has registered with false creditials (Due Diligence by new members takes care of this) -and- the entity is active in a criminal enterprise, you might have a case) Cheers, Alex
