[anti-abuse-wg] LIR membership, was Policy disallowing spam from RIPE blocks
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] LIR membership, was Policy disallowing spam from RIPE blocks
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] LIR membership
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Suresh Ramasubramanian
ops.lists at gmail.com
Thu Mar 10 15:27:27 CET 2011
There's no question of cartelization here - merely a background check of the sort that any bank carries out when sanctioning a loan. [which is the closest analogy I can find to an RIR being a custodian of, and allocating IP addresses to its members] On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 6:56 PM, Florian Weimer <fweimer at bfk.de> wrote: > It's difficult to introduce the right level of barriers because we > need to walk a fine line between preventing devaluation of RIPE > address space and forming a cartel which excludes potential > competitors. > -- Suresh Ramasubramanian (ops.lists at gmail.com)
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] LIR membership, was Policy disallowing spam from RIPE blocks
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] LIR membership
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]