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@gmx.net> 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)