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. Kevin > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On > Behalf Of Ted Mittelstaedt > Sent: Saturday, November 08, 2014 6:57 PM > To: [email protected] > 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 > Firewall) > > 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 > censor!!! > > 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 > ridiculous. > > Ted > > On 11/8/2014 11:53 AM, McTim wrote: > > > > > > On Sat, Nov 8, 2014 at 9:23 AM, John Von Stein > > <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> 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 ([email protected]). > > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > > Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues. > _______________________________________________ > PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN > Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues. _______________________________________________ PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
