On 15/10/2012 20:38, Sascha Luck wrote:
To re-iterate, a LIR is *not* responsible for "abuse" perpetrated by the end-user, your proposal is merely trying to create this responsibility out of thin air and ex post facto. (I assume this requirement is intended to apply to existing contracts)
My goodness, I have no idea where you pulled that one from. :-)
This proposal is, by this argument, working into the hands of certain parties (you know who you are) whose mission in business is to impose their political and moral beliefs on the internet in general and will most certainly use this information to put pressure on LIRs to cancel their contracts with, or refuse to sponsor, "unwelcome" end-users.
Ok, I'm going to call a halt at this stage. I'm really not interested in arguing against scary conspiratorial hand-waving and defending this policy proposal against allegations that the sky is going to fall. I don't think that the sky is going to fall, or that the policy is going to cause sinister attacks to occur with chilling effects. In fact, I can't see even a single black helicopter. For the record let me state that I do think that this proposal is a generally sensible clarification of the current policy which is fully consistent with other similar current policies concerning information availability and IETF recommended practices and all that sort of thing. Nick