> > ... probably most of the Abuse issues (especially via email) would
> > continue to be ignored. Noone wants to handle that stuff. But
> > someone(s) must handle that stuff.
>
> the underlying question is, "or else what?"
>
> this is an assymetric-benefit situation. when folks ignore reports from
> noncustomers the people they are hurting are those noncustomers. as sean
> and others have pointed out, there's no incentive-stick in that equation.
>
> someone asked me privately:
>
> > and why would anyone care about branding? what would it gain them?
> >
> > until theres financial penalties for being a bad netizen, there wont be
> > any incentive to follow the rules.
>
> if it were a checklist item for government/military/largecommercial contracts
> then you can bet that the sales team in every large/medium isp would beat the
> drum internally to ensure qualification and compliance.
>
> given the somewhat direct relationship between insider (customer) service,
> outsider responsiveness, and network uptime, this isn't a hard sell. what's
> hard is figuring out who can host the brand and what collection of people
> (network owners and their customers) can be trusted to define it.
>
> i'm thinking the new NRO (joint project by apnic/lacnic/ripe/arin) might
> be the right place to home a responsible-network-ownership branding program.
>
Comments about the NRO should be directed to the NRO discussion
list. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Specifics on the NRO proposal may be found on any/each of the RIR
web sites.
--bill
