[ppml] 2003-1a: Required Performance of Abuse Contact: Good - ARIN Should Not Define Abuse or Mediate Disputes

[Mury]

I've been thinking about this since the revised policy proposal came out.
I wasn't sure how I felt about it at first, but I've come to this
conclusion.

1) The part that deals with required and *usable* abuse contacts is a good
one.

2) The part that attempts to deal with revocation of IP space due to abuse
is bad.

I don't think it is practical nor desirable for ARIN to try to attempt to
settle abuse situations.  That really should be left up to a court.  Even
if ARIN did attempt to deal with severe abuse situations it would probably
end up in court any way.

However, it makes complete sense for ARIN to "revoke" IP space for not
having accurate and usable points of contact listed.

If an abused party is able to contact the IP space holder by the abuse
contacts listed, ARIN has fulfilled it's role.  At that point the abused
party can discuss the situation with the offending party and take it to
court if they need to.

If the abused party is unable to contact the offending party using the
abuse contact information listed they can ask ARIN to intercede.  If ARIN
is also unable to contact the IP space holder, ARIN will revoke the IP
space.

I think the main crux of the original policy was to require a real
response from abuse contacts.  This is good.  To define the grey lines of
abuse and mediate disputes should not be ARIN's responsibility.

Mury


On Wed, 12 Mar 2003, Dr. Jeffrey Race wrote:

> On Tue, 11 Mar 2003 12:38:51 -0700, John M. Brown wrote:
>
> >Do you REALLY think a RIR can do the job better ??  I certainly
> >dont, and dont even want them to think they can, or to try.
> >
> >Its *NOT* their job.
>
> I believe the thrust of the proposal is that the system is now
> broken because it is no one's job to enforce discipline, and
> therefore someone must be assigned the job.  The lesson from
> the way the rest of society works is that the body which allocates
> the resources withdraws them if they are not used according to
> the allocation agreement.    Some (small) amount of resources
> must be devoted to the discipline mechanism.   If it is known
> that discipline will be fast and ruthless, practically no
> resources need be devoted because no one will dare to violate
> the allocation agreements.  At the beginning you have to execute
> a very few offenders 'pour encourager les autres'.
>
> Viewing the big picture, I believe we can reasonably conclude
> that whatever resources the RIRs devote to discipline will be
> repaid hundreds, thousands or millions of times in reduced
> costs to the Internet as a whole.   We can also conclude that
> unless a discipline mechanism is adopted, problems of viruses,
> trojans, spam and ddos will continue to multiply, as they are
> now. The rising numbers for all of these metrics show the system as
> now operated is broken.
>
> Jeffrey Race
>
>
>