Re: [anti-abuse-wg] anti-abuse-wg Digest, Vol 17, Issue 11
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? Best regards, - Karl-Josef Ziegler
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
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 <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)
participants (3)
-
Karl-Josef Ziegler -
Shane Kerr -
Suresh Ramasubramanian