User Unknown (WAS: really amazon?)

Mon Aug 5 19:41:16 UTC 2019

[Speaking ONLY FOR MYSELF AS AN INDIVIDUAL.]

On Aug 4, 2019, at 8:15 AM, Rubens Kuhl <rubensk at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 4, 2019 at 5:17 AM Scott Christopher <sc at ottie.org> wrote:
> John Curran wrote: 
> 
> ...
> 
>> As I have noted previously, I have zero doubt in the enforceability of the ARIN registration services agreements in this regard – so please carefully consider proposed policy both from the overall community benefit being sought, and from the implications faced as a number resource holder having to comply oneself with the new obligations. 
> 
> I completely agree that ARIN can revoke an organization's resources. Nobody has ever doubted that.
> 
> What I have been saying is that if ARIN revoked Amazon's resources because of a trivial matter of bounced Abuse PoC, even if the small "community" of network operators and other interested parties passed a rule supporting this, the backlash would be *enormous* and lead to media attention, litigation, police, investigation by U.S. Congress, etc. 
> 
> The interests of the public affected by a global Amazon/AWS outage would greatly outweigh the rights of this small "community" which would ultimately be stripped away, I'd think.
> 
> This is moot, of course, because ARIN would give ample notices and time to Amazon and they would dutifully comply. But the original poster to which I replied invited us to imagine such a situation.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think that "companies with tons of lawyers" should be a factor in making resource allocation policies. But considering either small or big networks, an escalation path would reduce friction and increase overall compliance... for instance, failure to have functioning abuse PoC could lead first to being inegible to receive new resources. 

I would love for “companies with tons of lawyers” to be irrelevant to policy creation and implementation.

However, ARIN has to exist to enforce policy and support the community. If there is an existential threat to the corporation, e.g. legal risks, that must be taken into account.

To be clear, this does not mean a company with lots of lawyers should be allowed to direct policy. ARIN’s policies should and do come from the communities and their elected representatives (the AC). But to say that ARIN should not consider the legal implications goes a bit too far, IMHO.

[Reminder: Speaking ONLY FOR MYSELF AS AN INDIVIDUAL.]

-- 
TTFN,
patrick