<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><br><div><div>On May 2, 2011, at 5:46 PM, Jimmy Hess wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><div>On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 6:43 PM, William Herrin <<a href="mailto:bill@herrin.us">bill@herrin.us</a>> wrote:<br><blockquote type="cite">On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 7:13 PM, John Curran <<a href="mailto:jcurran@arin.net">jcurran@arin.net</a>> wrote:<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">On May 3, 2011, at 12:47 AM, William Herrin wrote:<br></blockquote></blockquote><br><blockquote type="cite">"Any network found to host photoshopped pornography of Republican<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">political candidates is subject to having its number resources<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">revoked."<br></blockquote><br>ARIN probably needs to surrender the ability to revoke IP addresses<br>based on censorship grounds back to the community, by putting a clause<br>in the RSA restricting ARIN from revoking resources for that reason,<br>if it even has<br>maintained such an ability, so a policy cannot ever revoke resources<br>for the purpose of targetting content served by hosts using an IP address.<br><br></div></blockquote>ARIN has never maintained such an ability and policy does not support any</div><div>creation of such an ability, at least in my interpretation of the current policy.</div><div><br></div><div>If the community somehow came to consensus in favor of such a policy,</div><div>the AC and the Board would still have to judge it to be technically sound</div><div>good policy. I think that is very unlikely.</div><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div>ARIN is concerned with stewardship of resources, and management<br>of what content or traffic can be exchanged by hosts assigned those resources,<br>is, and should be out of the scope of IP addressing and DNS policy.<br><br></div></blockquote>Agreed.</div><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div>That type of policy simply should not be allowed, even if the community finds<br>certain activity hosts using IP or DNS resources can perform to be abhorrent.<br><br></div></blockquote>Let's be somewhat careful here. Are you saying that we should protect the</div><div>rights of snowshoe spammers to obtain vast quantities of resources, for</div><div>example?</div><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div><br>Any censorship can be determined by the network service providers exchanging<br>the data, and by the relevant jurisdictions the hosts reside in;<br>there is no need<br>for ARIN to intervene there.<br><br></div></blockquote>Mostly I agree.</div><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div><br>Would the community actually adopt a policy like that? No...<br>How about<br><br>"Any network found to be harboring spammers or hackers, will have its<br>number resources revoked and automatically become ineligible<br>to receive any additional resources in the future.<br><font class="Apple-style-span" color="#000000"><font class="Apple-style-span" color="#144FAE"><br></font></font></div></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><div>Consistent existence of listing by a recognized public DNS RBL<br>of any assigned IP address, for a period of 24 hours or longer,<br>will result in a single warning; if not corrected, all resources will<br>be temporarily revoked after 7 days.<br><br>If the IP address is not found in good standing with the RBL<br>within 21 days, revokation becomes permanent.<br>"<br><br>That's probably something more likely to be proposed seriously<br><br></div></blockquote>If such a policy were to pass, do you think that legacy resources</div><div>should somehow be exempted from it?</div><div><br></div><div>Owen</div><div><br></div></body></html>