|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |
From: bmanning@karoshi.com To: paul@vix.com (Paul Vixie) Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2003 09:27:07 -0700 (PDT) Cc: nanog@merit.edu In-Reply-To: <20030929161344.E8A301396C@sa.vix.com> from "Paul Vixie" at Sep 29, 2003 04:13:44 PM Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu > > ... probably most of the Abuse issues (especially via email) would > > continue to be ignored. Noone wants to handle that stuff. But > > someone(s) must handle that stuff. > > the underlying question is, "or else what?" > > this is an assymetric-benefit situation. when folks ignore reports from > noncustomers the people they are hurting are those noncustomers. as sean > and others have pointed out, there's no incentive-stick in that equation. > > someone asked me privately: > > > and why would anyone care about branding? what would it gain them? > > > > until theres financial penalties for being a bad netizen, there wont be > > any incentive to follow the rules. > > if it were a checklist item for government/military/largecommercial contracts > then you can bet that the sales team in every large/medium isp would beat the > drum internally to ensure qualification and compliance. > > given the somewhat direct relationship between insider (customer) service, > outsider responsiveness, and network uptime, this isn't a hard sell. what's > hard is figuring out who can host the brand and what collection of people > (network owners and their customers) can be trusted to define it. > > i'm thinking the new NRO (joint project by apnic/lacnic/ripe/arin) might > be the right place to home a responsible-network-ownership branding program. > Comments about the NRO should be directed to the NRO discussion list. nro-comments@apnic.net Specifics on the NRO proposal may be found on any/each of the RIR web sites. --bill
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |