[anti-abuse-wg] 2019-04 Discussion Phase (Validation of "abuse-mailbox")
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-04 Discussion Phase (Validation of "abuse-mailbox")
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-04 Discussion Phase (Validation of "abuse-mailbox")
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Arash Naderpour
arash.naderpour at gmail.com
Thu Apr 30 16:10:05 CEST 2020
Can NCC members decide to stop following ripe policies one day? Regards, Arash On Fri, 1 May 2020, 00:02 No No, <no0484985 at gmail.com> wrote: > *>> You're assuming that the RIPE NCC has a right to tell organisations > what they can or cannot do with their addresses.* > > It's not *their* addresses, it's RIPE's addresses, which they allocated. > It's not *their* resources that are abused, it's the peer enabled > relationship that carries their bull crap across networks. > > If they want to set up a computer in a field surrounded by cows, and it > sends spam to itself or DDoS itself, that's fine. > > ---- > > > > > > > > On Thu, Apr 30, 2020 at 11:57 PM Nick Hilliard <nick at foobar.org> wrote: > >> Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote on 30/04/2020 13:42: >> > 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. >> >> You're putting the car before the horse. You're assuming that the RIPE >> NCC has a right to tell organisations what they can or cannot do with >> their addresses. Why do you think they do? And under what >> circumstances? And if they did have this right, why would you think >> that this right wouldn't come with the obligation to enforce this, and >> to assume liability in the case where they couldn't enforce it? Serge >> is correct to state that rights always come with responsibilities - >> they're different sides of the same coin. >> >> This is what concerns me about the proposals that have been put in front >> of AAWG - there's very little acknowledgement on the part of the >> proposers that there would be substantial downstream consequences if >> they were adopted. >> >> Nick >> >> > 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). >> > >> > --srs >> >> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/anti-abuse-wg/attachments/20200501/66b4a208/attachment.html>
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-04 Discussion Phase (Validation of "abuse-mailbox")
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-04 Discussion Phase (Validation of "abuse-mailbox")
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]