Sun 18th October 2009, 10:17pm
QUOTE(Krimpet @ Sat 17th October 2009, 9:32pm)
It's a nonsense proposal, because there's already a system of "licenses" in place - you have your service agreement with your ISP, and they have their agreements with the peers they're connected to. By agreeing to your ISP's policies, in return you get to use the Internet under an IP address belonging to them. ISPs just need to get their act together when it comes to enforcing their current regulations on abusive customers, and ISPs that refuse to kick off their abusers can be terminated by the peers they're connected to. Simple, and no need for a silly "passport" system.
Erm, if it's so simple, why hasn't it happened, yet? Sure, you can complain to a major ISP about some spam-scammer (phisher) and they'll probably kick them off, but that only means they go to some other ISP. The various ISP's don't require ID and don't talk to each other, so it's even easier than socking WP.
Although government-run ISPs are actually more responsive to kicking phishing spammers off their network (exception: Mauritius, Nigeria and the like), at the same time, they don't exactly require ID and thus have somebody "real" to send the cops out to arrest, either. This is so rare that it makes news when it happens.
Not all scammers even have an ISP, because there exist nodes and gateways that aren't ISPs for the public, which spammers get access to, anyway. You've seen the blackhole server
ISP numbers assigned by IANA. This is done to keep private intraweb stuff that gets out on the nets, from clogging the system up with reverse DNS lookups that have no answers. The problem being that some of these DNS lookups are looking for spammers, and it would be nice find out whose private intraweb is being used for that, so you can complain to THEM (unless the spammers ARE the owners). Instead, you get the IANA blackhole answer, and who are you going ot complain to then
Not the IANA.
They claim it's not their problem.