[anti-abuse-wg] Notice: Fradulent RIPE ASNs

Sander,

On Sunday, 2013-01-20 22:37:44 +0100, 
Sander Steffann <sander at steffann.nl> wrote:

> > Anyway, it may come as no surprise when I say that this information
> > flow "one way street" is less than satisfying.  In fact that would
> > be an understatement.  And if one thinks about it, this cloak of
> > secrecy that hides all... all noble actions and all skullduggery,
> > without discrimination... may be a part of the reason that other
> > people of generosity and good intent, unlike me, do not waste their
> > time on looking to deeply into funny stuff on this Internet, let
> > alone reporting any such.  Why bother when it is a forgone
> > conclusion that the whole thing will be hushed up in the end
> > anyway, and, as far as anyone of the outside knows, neither any
> > drop of justice nor any dollop of disipline is ever dispensed.
> 
> Now *this* is something that might be solved by a policy proposal.

I agree.

> How about a policy that states that a list of all resources reclaimed
> by/returned to/delegated to the RIPE NCC must be published? I don't
> know about the legal implications of also publishing the company name
> etc of the last holder, but how about a list containing:
> - Resource
> - Reclaimed date
> - Reason (received from IANA, returned by holder, violation of
> policy, bankruptcy, court order, non-payment, fraud/untruthful
> information, etc)
> - Returned to pool date

It does not seem to me that merely recording reclaimed resources is
really going to get to the heart of the transparency problem.

Perhaps something more like a couple of checkboxes on the complaint form
which say:

[ ] I wish this complaint to be public.
  [ ] I wish my name to be included in the public report.

This way we could have an opt-in public archive of all abuse reports
that the RIPE NCC has received. Consider it a sort of RIPE NCC
version of the Google Transparency Report. :)

http://www.google.com/transparencyreport/

Cheers,

--
Shane