[anti-abuse-wg] Hijacked netblocks - any SOP for these?

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.