Re: User Unknown (WAS: really amazon?)

[Rubens Kuhl <rubensk () gmail com>]

On Sun, Aug 4, 2019 at 5:17 AM Scott Christopher <sc () 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.


Rubens