[anti-abuse-wg] Draft Anti-Abuse WG Agenda - RIPE 66
Ronald F. Guilmette rfg at tristatelogic.com
Thu Mar 7 07:41:53 CET 2013
In message <51371EFA.3030502 at heanet.ie>, Brian Nisbet <brian.nisbet at heanet.ie> wrote: >> P.S. I am still not sure if any other things that drew me to this mailing >> list, or to this WG, or that I have reported here, over time, are or are >> not considered abuse. (And by that I mean "formally" considered.) > >I certainly believe they are, everyone else seems largely to agree Then why hasn't anything been done? I reported a set of blatantly, provably, outrageously fradulent networks here over six weeks ago now. As far as I can tell, they are all still on the books (in the RIPE data base) and all still operating with total and utter impunity... still announcing routes to innumerable IPv4 blocks registered to innumerable utterly fradulent and fictitious entities, all of which were transparently and deliberately created, out of whole cloth, by a single party or entity, entirely and only as a ruse to trick RIPE NCC out of huge quantities of IPv4 addresses so that those could then be sub- leased to several different snowshoe spammers. (None of this is speculation. I have the evidence that clearly supports every charge I've just made, and would have provided it to anyone who asked, but apparently nobody, either here or elsewhere, gives or gave enough of a damn to even ask to see any of it.) RIPE NCC knows all about this stuff, and they haven't lifted a finger in over six weeks to do squat about any of it. And I daresay that it now seems abundantly likely that we will see action out of the College of Cardinals in Rome long before we see any out of RIPE NCC on this issue. Personally, I think this indefensible and abject inaction makes a mockery of you, me, this working group, the Internet as a whole, and every person who, like me, has invested even a moment of their time, effort, or intellectual abilities to try to ferret out and then report these kinds of outrageously crooked operations to ``responsible authorities''... and I use the term loosely. I mean what's the point? I could have more profitably invested my time and energy in rearranging the contents of my sock drawer. (And I doubt that this point will be lost on any others who might likewise be tempted to work to make the Internet a better place for all. Why bother? It won't be appreciated and more to the point, it won't have any effect.) I see only two possibilities. Either what I reported is not actually and formally considered to be ``abuse'', or else _rectifying_ ``abuse'', even of the most blatant, fradulent, wasteful, and destructive kind, is now provably not on anybody's official TO-DO, list. You claim that it is not the former. If it is the latter, then all activities of this working group, past, present, and future, may, in my opinion, rightfully be derided as being nothing more than exercises in mental masturbation and bureaucratic mumbo jumbo yielding absolutely nothing of value. If the point of this WG is merely to _talk_ about network abuse, then I'm confident that it will go down in the history books as having been a great success. >so we're good. Speak for yourself please. To quote the Lone Ranger's trusty (American-)Indian sidekick Tonto ``What do you mean WE kimo sabe?''