[anti-abuse-wg] Counterfeit shops pres follow-up
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Counterfeit shops pres follow-up
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Counterfeit shops pres follow-up
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Shane Kerr
shane at time-travellers.org
Tue Oct 9 10:55:46 CEST 2012
Suresh, On Monday, 2012-10-08 19:22:10 +0530, Suresh Ramasubramanian <ops.lists at gmail.com> wrote: > The data is out there and has been analyzed in multiple places. > > However, in the interests of sanity - and so that this issue does not > get ignored by pointing out where all it is not relevant to RIPE NCC's > mandate or out of scope of any RIR .. [such as domain names for > example, you want ICANN for that, and the UDRP] .. While the anti-abuse working group does help create RIPE policy, that is not the only thing it does. I had a quick look at the charter: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/groups/wg/anti-abuse And I didn't see anything about limiting discussion or work to issues related to the RIPE NCC. I think that the working group is free to discuss anything the participants want to, as long as it is related to abuse on the Internet. > Can you please focus on > > 1. How many of these resolve to IPs in the RIPE coverage area > 2. How many of them are actual RIPE allocations to malicious entities, > rather than compromised IPs for example? > > #2 in particular. Having said that, I do agree that your questions are interesting. They point to an area that might result in the RIPE NCC being able to help reduce this kind of shady marketing! :) Cheers, -- Shane
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Counterfeit shops pres follow-up
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Counterfeit shops pres follow-up
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]