Can NCC members decide to stop following ripe policies one day? Regards, Arash On Fri, 1 May 2020, 00:02 No No, <no0484985@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@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