In message <20190401115412.GC97529@Space.Net>, Gert Doering <gert@space.net> wrote:
So, your local supermarket is also not allowed to sell anything to a convicted criminal?
That analogy is a poor one. It would however be accurate to say that my local GUN STORE is not allowed to sell firearms to a convicted criminal. And that's clearly a much better analogy, because in the case of this massive "ad fraud" scheme that was carried out by the group known as 3ve, they were using IP addresses as weapons in their scheme. Should RIPE be selling them more? Apparently, as of right now, there is no rule in place to prevent this. And as I have already noted, the company known as Universal IP Solution Corp. is still a member in good standing of the RIPE association. If you are arguing that that is in any sense justifiable, either morally, ethically, or even legally, please say so explicitly. Meanwhile, as I have tried to express, all of the armchair legal scholars on this mailing list who have postulated that RIPE would somehow be in legal jepordy if it merely ternminates a contract in accordance with the explicit terms of that contract should take a moment to google for the term "vicarious liability". In my country, there is now at least one lawsuit, progressing through the courts, against gun manufacturers for their supportive role in some of our recent mass shootings. I hope that it does not take a similar legal action against RIPE before RIPE adopts some rational policies to prevent itself from being the handmadien of online cyber-criminal enterprises and from then being reasonably and properly held to legal account for this exact supportive role on ongoing cyber-crime schemes. Regards, rfg