[anti-abuse-wg] Hijacked netblocks - any SOP for these?
Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet Woeber at CC.UniVie.ac.at
Tue Aug 9 16:27:11 CEST 2011
Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > Which is what is sought to be addressed. Granted the due diligence > exists, but the fact remains that there are botmasters and spammers > who manage to game this process. > > While the LIR revocation process exists, a more "user friendly" / > transparent complaint handling mechanism and periodic audits might > make things interesting Again, the mechanism of audits does exist (since at least 1996) and is documented here: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-423?searchterm=lir+audit See section 4. Types, 3rd type: Reported Regarding "user friendly", I guess you do have a point here, as the AudiT Procedure document is maybe not easy to find, or the description of the technical procedue to use for "Reported" is not documented. > On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 7:04 PM, Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet > <Woeber at cc.univie.ac.at> wrote: > >>But if you succeed in forging that type of documents, or if you succeed to >>get some "official entity" to help in doing that, the NCC is at the loosing >>end of the stick :-( Actually, it might even be more useful to emphasise the "Reported" type over the "Random" type; assuming that the Community does exercise that channel responsibly and that this mechanism is not abused to bully some parties (and the NCC) for whatever unrelated reason. Hth, Wilfried.