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

Chris wrote:
>
> "ripe's core task is to provide the db in the form *i* want it"
>
> obviously not true. ripe's core task is number resource coordination, the db is a service, if ripe decided not to provide for it - then there simply wouldn't be one.
>

Sorry, but the above statement IS true indeed.
Chris: you are mixing RIPE and RIPE NCC.

The community has a real interest in an up-to-date and working whois db,
e.g. we all can see on this list.
And RIPE NCC has to fullfill this interest.

Its only on us to define how far RIPE NCC should go.
And if the data in the whois db is not correct enough for us,
we need to tell the NCC how to improve this.

I would recommend an RFC about validation methods, RIPE NCC
should implement after Tobias new abuse-c is in place.


Kind regards, Frank

> "icann says $foobar"
>
> go talk with icann about that.
>
> "$foo cannot be reached. we phoned them up, but they didn't react to our inquiries the way we wanted them to. we didn't want to send them postal mail. they didn't publish an email in whois, but we mailed them anyway, but they didn't answer the way we wanted them to. we want ripe to take their resources away because we say so, and because of this example, we want everybody to be forced to publish a spamable email address that works [by which probably a heap of further madness is implied]"
>
> i think this summary is already formulated in a way so my points are clear...
> another thing: if $a has about 100 issues per month with $b, and they even are in the same country and jurisdiction - sorry, but the picture painted is something like: $a nags $b (big time - i mean, a hundred issues per month...) because $a wants something from $b, but $b obviously seems to have a different view on the issue, and obviously the law is on $b's side (that ther's no lea in said jurisdiction is ofc a very blatant lie), and therefore $a wants ripe to take "somebody's" resources away in case they don't comply to rules $a wants to put up (and which don't make rational sense).
> i'd call _that_ abuse...
>
> if "ugly" db statistics are the issue, the working and straightforward solution would be a refer attribute in inet*num objects. with the ripe's allocation objects remaining, the quality of the ripe whois db would probably be very good.
>
> regards,
>
> 	Chris
>
>


-- 

Mit freundlichen Gruessen,
--
PHADE Software - PowerWeb                       http://www.powerweb.de
Inh. Dipl.-Inform. Frank Gadegast             mailto:frank at powerweb.de
Schinkelstrasse 17                                fon: +49 33200 52920
14558 Nuthetal OT Rehbruecke, Germany             fax: +49 33200 52921
======================================================================