<!DOCTYPE html><html><head><title></title><style type="text/css">p.MsoNormal,p.MsoNoSpacing{margin:0}</style></head><body><div>John Curran wrote: <br></div><div><br></div><div>...<br></div><div><br></div><blockquote type="cite" id="qt"><div><span style="white-space:pre;" class="qt-Apple-tab-span"></span>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. <br></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I completely agree that ARIN can revoke an organization's resources. Nobody has ever doubted that.<br></div><div><br></div><div>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. <br></div><div><br></div><div>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.<br></div><div><br></div><div>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.<br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div id="sig60967057"><div class="signature">S.C.<br></div></div><div><br></div></body></html>