[anti-abuse-wg] National PSDN "UZPAK"
Florian Weimer fw at deneb.enyo.de
Wed Mar 28 20:35:01 CEST 2012
* Suresh Ramasubramanian: > There is clearly a fiduciary duty as the custodians of a scarce, depleting, > common good. > > So, why would an analogy about due diligence not score points? Because we do not value accountability in our financial institutions. Back to the original topic. I agree that we face various issues with service provider accountability, but one of the major problems with this and similar discussions is that those who demand some form of action make claims which are quite obviously not factually correct. The allocated resource covering 126.96.36.199 is the inetnum object 188.8.131.52 - 184.108.40.206, allocated to this LIR: organisation: ORG-UNCN1-RIPE org-name: Uzpak Net (Country Net of Independence Republic of Uzbekistan) org-type: LIR address: National Data Network Company 8th floor, 8, Druzhba Narodov str., 700043, Tashkent, Uzbekistan phone: +998 71 114 6314 phone: +998 71 144 4804 fax-no: +998 71 114 6322 e-mail: admin at uzpak.uz admin-c: BM2509-RIPE admin-c: MBA-RIPE mnt-ref: AS8193-MNT mnt-ref: RIPE-NCC-HM-MNT mnt-by: RIPE-NCC-HM-MNT changed: [...] 20120308 source: RIPE There you have a street address, a phone number, and even an email address. Does this change anything about accountability? Not sure. For PA resources, such information is relatively easy to find. However, RIPE NCC is not able to provide this as a service, and restricts access to the database in a way that makes it impossible to offer such a service to the general public. But these obstacles are created by RIPE NCC and the RIPE community, and not the resource holders. Again, let me stress that this case is far from unique. We often see claims that some network is "bad". I'm slightly out of touch with regards to current network-wide events, but I still feel that I should be able to recognize proof of badness as such. But what happens far too often is that folks who I know are knowledgeable about these things cannot express their rationale in terms I can understand or accept as proof. This is a problem.