[anti-abuse-wg] WHOIS (AS204224)
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] WHOIS (AS204224)
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] WHOIS (AS204224)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Sascha Luck [ml]
aawg at c4inet.net
Fri Nov 6 16:22:30 CET 2015
On Fri, Nov 06, 2015 at 10:01:33AM -0500, Jeffrey Race wrote: >At present the internet is a cesspool of crime without >effective mechanisms of accountability and traceability. An As an, albeit small, part of the Internet, I take exception to this statement. >outsider viewing this thread (and the dozens of others I've been >monitoring for more than a decade) would find remarkable the >unspoken assumption of their discussions: how to make life >trouble-free for the registration and contracting bodies, even >though this makes inevitable the criminal nature of the >mechanism they are charged with managing. The internet resource management mechanism as managed by RIRs and LIRS is "of a criminal nature", do I understand you correctly? >With a proper goal in mind ("Develop our mechanisms so the >internet is no longer a cesspool of crime") the kind of >discussion below ("We can't consider that because it would be a >lot of work and some people would become upset") would be out of >bounds. What discussion is out-of-bounds is not for you to determine, sir. >The matter of the "defining discussion goal" will have to be >taken up in order to make progress on this list's putative >purpose of "anti-abuse." Had you read the charter of this WG, you would have learned that its purpose is to *discuss* abuse, not to stamp it out. And I will say again, you will NOT define what the goals or contents of discussion in this WG are. rgds, Sascha Luck > >Jeffrey Race > > >On Fri, 6 Nov 2015 13:49:01 +0000, Sascha Luck [ml] wrote: > >>On Fri, Nov 06, 2015 at 11:56:51AM +0100, denis wrote: >>> >>>Add to that all the possible language issues and I am not sure >>>how you will expect the RIPE NCC to validate all this personal >>>contact data with people who they have no relationship with >>>and who may have never heard of the RIPE NCC or RIPE. Anyone >>>who receives an email from an organisation they have never >>>heard of, possibly in a language they don't understand, asking >>>to validate personal information...well you know how that will >>>be treated these days. >> >>I've occasionally done db cleanup death-marches for customers >>where I've created/updated/deleted 100 or so objects in a >>single day. (usually with contact data relating to the LIR >>which does have a contract with the NCC) Is the idea seriously >>that someone doing this will have to field 100 phone calls or >>reply to 100 emails over the day? >> >>What about the numerous LIRs who do their resource management >>programatically, without human input? >> >>IMO, such actions would actually discourage proper resource >>management and lower the quality of the db. >> >>>Also bear in mind a single data validation is quite pointless. >>>What is valid today may not be tomorrow. So you cannot trust >>>data that was validated yesterday. To have any benefit this >>>data would have to be routinely re-validated. Given the >>>quantity of personal data sets in the RIPE Database (we are >>>talking millions), many of whom have never heard of the RIPE >>>NCC, to ask them to undertake this exercise would result in >>>the RIPE NCC being reported to many law enforcement >>>authorities for phishing. >> >>Not even considering the inevitable members' revolt. >> >>rgds, Sascha Luck >> > > >
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] WHOIS (AS204224)
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] WHOIS (AS204224)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]