You are here: Home > Participate > Join a Discussion > RIPE Forum
RIPE Forum v1.4.2

Database Working Group

Threaded
Collapse

Re: [db-wg] [anti-abuse-wg] Proposal 2022-01

denis walker

2022-06-23 19:53:35 CET

Yes Carlos you are absolutely right. There is no suggestion whatsoever that
any membership will be revoked or any resources de-registered if any
verification fails.

Cheers
denis
Proposal author

On Thu, 23 Jun 2022, 11:48 Carlos Friaças via anti-abuse-wg, <
anti-abuse-wg _at_ ripe _dot_ net> wrote:

>
>
> Hi, please see inline.
>
>
> On Thu, 23 Jun 2022, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
>
> > Just curious... How many of you folks have actually read sections 4.0,
> 5.0,
> > and 6.0 of this pending proposal from the Database Working Group?
>
> Read it just now. :-)
>
>
> > https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2022-01
> >
> > I suspect that many of you are going to want to read those sections
> before
> > you have your memberships revoked for non-compliance.
>
> I can't read any details about membership revokation. Also i don't see it
> as implicit.
>
> The three sections make perfect sense to me. In section 6.0, if i
> understood correctly this won't apply to legacy resources which are still
> out of any contractual relationship -- which also seems fine.
>
>
> Regards,
> Carlos
>
>
> > Regards,
> > rfg
> >
> > --
> >
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or
> change your subscription options, please visit:
> https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/anti-abuse-wg
> >
>
> --
>
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or change
> your subscription options, please visit:
> https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/anti-abuse-wg
>

Ronald F. Guilmette

2022-06-24 02:09:19 CET

In message <CAKvLzuHjvzMjV8uT0nvv_ocL2h-uF49uNwTdAJDRvDpJabfqdA _at_ mail.gmail _dot_ com>
denis walker <ripedenis _at_ gmail _dot_ com> wrote:

>Yes Carlos you are absolutely right. There is no suggestion whatsoever that
>any membership will be revoked or any resources de-registered if any
>verification fails.

What then is the enforcement mechanism that underpins sections 4.0, 5.0, and
6.0 of your proposal then?  Foul language?

If recalcitrant members continue to put bogus garbage into their WHOIS
records, then what happens?  Will NCC step in, take control of the relevant
WHOIS record(s) and insert correct information taken from the member's original
bona fide documents that the member submitted when the member joined RIPE?

You can't have it both ways.  You can't make it a matter of formal policy
that names, street addresses, phone numbers, and email addresses will
henceforth have to be "verified" without explaining who is going to do
this, when it is going to be done, what exactly qualifies as "verified",
and what you believe will happen or should happen if it -isn't- done.


Regards,
rfg