Even if it's the only restaurant serving food in the region it can impose restrictions, as long as they are reasonable.
And having a working abuse e-mail address seems very reasonable for any kind of organization working in the internet. There are many norms that are not laws, that still apply. Try to get on a plane misbehaving. Try to enter a government building misbehaving. We're having this discussion, because the "it will go away if we ignore it" approach, is just not working. Serge On 30.04.20 15:01, Sascha Luck [ml] wrote: > On Thu, Apr 30, 2020 at 12:42:09PM +0000, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >> RIPE NCC need not decide whether a behaviour is legal or not in order >> to prohibit use of resources that it allocates for such behaviour. >> >> Wearing a T-shirt, shorts and flip flops is perfectly legal and yet >> you can be refused entry into a fancy restaurant if you wear them. >> >> Nobody gets to sue the restaurant for refusing admission by claiming >> that tshirts and flip flops are perfectly legal attire, and even >> nudity is legal in some parts of Europe (German topless and nude >> beaches say). > > If this restaurant were the only source of food in a region, it > would damn well be illegal to refuse service no matter how (or > if) the client is dressed. > > Why are we havijg thjis discussion yet again? > > rgds, > Sascha Luck > >> >> --srs >> ________________________________ >> From: Nick Hilliard <n...@foobar.org> >> Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2020 5:43:04 PM >> To: Suresh Ramasubramanian <ops.li...@gmail.com> >> Cc: anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net <anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net> >> Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-04 Discussion Phase (Validation of >> "abuse-mailbox") >> >> Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote on 30/04/2020 01:58: >>> Why would I ask about something I am posting as an individual in my >>> personal capacity? >> >> because your day job involves abuse / security and in that capacity you >> may have access to good quality legal resources. >> >>> I see great pains being taken to have NCC stay hands off and arms length >>> from abuse issues at its members. I understand the motivation. >>> >>> However, being in a fiduciary role - with IPv4 being traded like >>> currency these days the description fits - RIPE NCC can�t not get >>> involved. >>> >>> I am concerned that this is eventually going to lead to heavy handed >>> state regulation if a regulator gets involved after some particularly >>> egregious misbehaviour by a (hypothetical at this point but the risk >>> exists or might even exist now) shell company that gets itself >>> membership, even LIR status and then uses a large allocation of IPs >>> exclusively for crime. >>> >>> NCC owes it to the rest of its membership and the internet community at >>> large to take a more active role in this matter. >>> >>> Though those of us that are saying this are probably voices in the >>> wilderness at this point. >> >> Couple of general observations: >> >> - internet abuse is a specific instance of general societal abuse. It's >> a complex problem and one where punishment / the threat of punishment is >> one of many methods of handling it, and arguably not one of the better >> ones from a general application point of view. >> >> - The RIPE NCC is not constituted to evaluate what is and isn't legal in >> the 75+ countries that it services. E.g. should it revoke numbering >> resources due to CSAM because that's illegal in NL? What about >> blasphemous material, which is such a no-no in several other service >> countries that it attracts capital punishment? It's a difficult >> proposition to suggest that the RIPE NCC should start getting into the >> business of evaluating what is and isn't abuse. >> >> - we already have structures in place to handle evaluation of what >> constitutes acceptable or unacceptable behaviour. The international >> nature of the internet has strained this to the point where it often >> doesn't work. >> >> - there's a consistent undercurrent of thought here of feeling that >> because other societal mechanisms for controlling abuse have not stopped >> abuse on the internet, that the RIPE NCC is obliged to act. This >> assumption needs to be questioned. >> >> - almost all of the policy proposals in AAWG over the last several years >> have been aimed at using the RIPE number registry as a social behaviour >> enforcement mechanism. There are other ways of handling social >> behaviour issues, e.g. standards creation + compliance, community >> forums, etc, etc, etc. >> >> - complex problems aren't amenable to simple fixes. >> >> - the primary concern expressed by the people I've talked to in law >> enforcement is: "where should the warrant be served?" >> >> - the RIPE NCC operates in a complex legal environment. There's a >> substantial risk that the types of proposals that are being pushed in >> AAWG would be found to be illegal and would open the organisation up to >> damages or prosecution if applied (e.g shutting down a company because >> they insisted on using a web form instead of SMTP for handling abuse >> reports). Alex de Joode's emails in the last round of discussion >> indicated some of the difficulties involved here. >> >> Nothing in any of this invalidates the frustration that everyone has for >> continued problems relating to fraud and abuse. >> >> Nick > -- Dr. Serge Droz Chair of the FIRST Board of Directors https://www.first.org
