Alex,
On 17/05/2019 01.56, Alex de Joode wrote:
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)
(Please read all 3 paragraphs before answering the first one!)
It seems like the RIPE NCC could legitimately claim that being able to
handle abuse reports is a requirement for receiving any number
resources. If the procedure for verifying this is reasonable, then I
don't see why revocation of those resources would be considered
disproportional.
In any case, any policy proposal receives feasibility feedback from the
RIPE NCC, who has excellent legal staff. Further, the RIPE NCC has
resources for external consultation if their in-house legal staff is not
sufficient to answer any questions about a given proposal.
I don't think we need to be amateur lawyers for this or any other proposal.
Cheers,
--
Shane
