[anti-abuse-wg] Introducing the RIPE NCC Report Form

On 04/10/2012 05:18 PM, Joe St Sauver wrote:
> Errors in registration details are not a police matter.

if they aren't, they're not a matter at all. your private stuff isn't a public matter (interesting fact: the ancient greeks had a word for that attitude...)

> Errors in registration details ARE directly germane to RIPE's remit as 
> administrator of number resources, a function it provides for those in
> its region on behalf of the worldwide Internet community.

ripe is the administration of number resources. one of the services kindly provided by ripe is a whois db. if you have an issue where that db might help you - good. that's independent from any legal issue. if you have a legal issue, and db doesn't help you, you will have to go the canonical way (you'll have to anyway, even if db tells you what you want). you have no claim towards the services sbdy provides you to be of general help.
ripe knows where it allocates the space to. if judiciary asks ripe (failing or not willing to read the db), ripe tells them. actually, if sbdy else than judiciary asked, telling them would be illegal - if it wasn't data entered into a public database.

to let some steam off, why don't you go to internic et al (like godaddy and whoever) with your whois db ideas, that'd be a great place to run riot, wouldn't it... and you could even pretend it's kind of your business...

> Maintenance of the database documenting who's been allocated/assigned
> space is *core* to RIPE's mission.

simply wrong.
ripe's core is allocation. that's what they do. your mission is your private error.

> Note that by RIPE policy, participation in RIPE Working Groups (including

just re-read my statement you are refering to. telling me that i and not you have to pay for your weirdness, i find impertinent.

> party notifying RIPE of a data inaccuracy in the existing database. Should 
> the notifying party be required to demonstrate exhaustion of all possible 
> self-notification channels before referring the matter to RIPE as a "last 
> resort?" No. 

well, you know, you'll tell them "i did!" anyway. and trust me, they know that, too. and to get to the point, i just hope and am currently convinced that ncc will act apropriately according to the individual case...

> A good Samaritan volunteer reporters has no obligation to do RIPE's work 

that's a good one. the good samaritan troll. ;))

ok, the good guy is free to report to ripe whatever he thinks he should.
i think that's good.

having this discussion over and over again sucks. i guess it's time to think about using the refer attribute for inet*num.

regards,

	Chris