[arin-ppml] ARIN IPs and Spammers? => Need for Governance
kkargel at polartel.com
Mon Nov 10 10:34:05 EST 2014
I have to agree with Ted. ARIN is not in the 'acceptable use enforcement' business and that is a line that should not be crossed. There are many other agencies and venues more appropriate for the task of spam regulation. ARIN is not a first amendment police, and they are not responsible for misuse of member networks. ARIN's sole job is registration of IP number resources.
I am 100% in favor of limiting and restricting spam and other malicious internet abuses, but ARIN is not the appropriate agency to assign the onus of policing these bad actors. I applaud all the efforts to fight spam and encourage everyone to become much more active and involved in combatting it, but please do it from a proper agency.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On
> Behalf Of Ted Mittelstaedt
> Sent: Saturday, November 08, 2014 6:57 PM
> To: arin-ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN IPs and Spammers? => Need for Governance
> I for one would never support such a proposal.
> I will point out the United States invented the Internet. This is something
> that EVERY OTHER COUNTRY IN THE WORLD has to accept. They may not like
> to admit it even to themselves but they know it's true.
> The United States modeled the Internet based on the "US publishing world"
> meaning that speech - ie: publishing - on the Internet is under First
> Amendment protection. In short, there are no prohibitions on it.
> That is why the very structure of the TCP/IP protocol itself does not carry
> anything in it that helps to identify content, or make it easier for people
> wanting to prohibit certain content. This is why you cannot run VoIP traffic
> over the Internet (without it sounding like a child's Skype toy) because
> networks do not honor or pay attention to traffic content - VoIP traffic is
> given the same priority as data traffic.
> Other countries such as China which have totalitarian governments that do
> not have freedom of speech, had to accept the United State's definition of
> what the Internet is - that is, no prohibitions. In order to advance their
> filtering agendas they have had to "tack on" content filters. (ie: The Great
> And there are many more people in the world who would like to control
> other people by denying or filtering content. From the Ayatollas in Iran to
> the dictators in China to the religious nutcases who still have a lot of control in
> counties like Mexico, there is no shortage of people who would like to
> prohibit something on the Internet.
> It would be a great evil for the RIR system to get involved in that.
> Once you opened the door to denying spammers, the small-brained
> retrogrades in the Vatican and other places that want to control speech and
> who currently don't understand the Internet, would realize that they could
> accomplish their goals of bringing another Dark Ages on the world by
> interfering in the RIR system.
> If you live in the United States - where free speech is required by law
> - would you trust that censor button in the hands of a typical Republican
> politician? And those are people in the US who are required by law NOT to
> There is no parallel to financial trading or any of that. And I will point out that
> financial contracts are violated ALL THE TIME by governments with impunity.
> When the United States freezes bank accounts of an overseas government
> to protest something they break hundreds if not thousands of contracts.
> And people get old and die waiting for their money. The arbitration system
> has no control over that sort of thing. So to claim that the financial arbitration
> system is a model of how the RIR's could implement something is absolutely
> On 11/8/2014 11:53 AM, McTim wrote:
> > On Sat, Nov 8, 2014 at 9:23 AM, John Von Stein
> > <John at qxccommunications.com
> <mailto:John at qxccommunications.com>> wrote:
> > This does not need to be "eye for an eye" enforcement. ____
> > __ __
> > Just like a speeding, beyond the safety issues involved the
> > deterrent against doing it partially the cost of the fine and the
> > increased insurance premium but mostly is the fear of losing the
> > privilege, not the right, to drive. Repeated or an egregious
> > offense will lead to someone's driver's license being revoked.
> > ____
> > __ __
> > If we define the use of IP addresses as a privilege, not a right,
> > granted by ARIN then it is possible to build Acceptable Use rules on
> > that founding principle.
> > Possible, yes, but is it desirable?
> > So far no RIR policy community has gotten into the deeply murky issue
> > of content regulation (which is what many would call it if we were to
> > create an anti-spam policy).
> > You are free to write such a policy and see if you can get agreement
> > from the community.
> > --
> > Cheers,
> > McTim
> > "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
> > route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel
> > _______________________________________________
> > PPML
> > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN
> > Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN
> Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
More information about the ARIN-PPML