[anti-abuse-wg] anti-abuse-wg Digest, Vol 17, Issue 11
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] anti-abuse-wg Digest, Vol 17, Issue 11
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Please unblock 80.71.128.0/20
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Suresh Ramasubramanian
ops.lists at gmail.com
Mon Jan 21 10:49:58 CET 2013
The thing is, if such an association as you describe is given a fiduciary role, as a trustee of IP addresses, not caring whether the member it enforces policy against is an extra large LIR or some small outfit with a /20 PI / PA space should be a given. As should a readiness to enforce their policies instead of declining to become the "Internet police", which itself is one of the worst cliches ever. On Monday, January 21, 2013, Shane Kerr wrote: > Karl-Josef, > > On Sunday, 2013-01-20 12:55:09 +0100, > Karl-Josef Ziegler <kjz at gmx.net <javascript:;>> wrote: > > > Thinking about it, just in the last day or two I've realized that > > > RIPE, ARIN, IANA, ICANN, and all such authorities are in many ways > > > quite analogous to our Federal Reserve here in the United States. In > > > both cases, the entities have much authority and are widely > > > perceived as having charters that somehow commit them to pursuit of > > > the public good. But in both cases, the reality is rather > > > different... these entities are in fact merely commercial > > > associations of business interests that are pledged, if not by law > > > then by contract, to never reveal even a smidgeon of their > > > commercial member's dirty laundry to any "outsider", and their > > > iron-clad commitment to this goal always takes precedence over any > > > other consideration. > > > > I agree. The main goal of these organisations for me seems to be not > > protecting public goods but protecting the commercial interests of > > their members. So they aren't nonprofit organizations? > > My take on it is that there are basically two kinds of nonprofit > organizations: > > 1. Organizations that vaccinate orphans, dig wells to provide clean > water, investigate corruption, and so on. These are non-profit > because they are fundamentally engaged in activities that cost money > instead of earning it. > > 2. Organizations that provide a needed "neutral ground" for businesses > to operate, such as standards making bodies or consortia managing > when and where cables can be laid down. These are non-profit because > the profit motive would create a conflict of interest with the > businesses they were created to serve. > > There are other organizations that don't fit this, like credit unions > (non-profit banks), but I think it covers the majority. In general the > first type of non-profit is poor and the second type is well-off. > > The thing about the RIPE NCC and the other RIRs is that the world has > for some reason assumed that they fit into category #1 ("they exist for > the good of the Internet!"). I would argue that the RIPE NCC and the > other RIRs are very firmly in category #2 ("we are an industry > association"). > > It is a pity that none of the RIRs have never done anything to change > this idea, but I can understand why not. Would you rather be an > organization that shuffles paperwork or one that is there to make the > world a better place? :) > > Anyway, I'll reply to the notion of opening up abuse investigations in > a mail to Sander's specific proposal. > > Cheers, > > -- > Shane > > -- --srs (iPad) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/anti-abuse-wg/attachments/20130121/07283f0d/attachment.html>
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] anti-abuse-wg Digest, Vol 17, Issue 11
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Please unblock 80.71.128.0/20
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]