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

Ronald,

On Monday, 2013-01-21 03:44:57 -0800, 
"Ronald F. Guilmette" <rfg at tristatelogic.com> wrote:
> Public naming and shaming of any and all parties involved should be
> a part of that, in my opinion, and furthermore I think that a pro-
> vision which explicitly allows this should be written into all RIPE
> contracts from now on.... as in "If we catch you doing this, then
> no, you DON'T get to hide behind any confidentiality provisions
> within this contract that might otherwise apply."

I agree. I even don't think we should wait until the end of the
process! :)

There are reasons that trials are matters of the public record, and
basically I think they all apply here.

> >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.
> 
> Color me flumoxed.

I can't find "flummoxed" in my crayon box, but maybe I need to get one
with more colors. ;)
 
> I _thought_ that we were talking about the (unfortunate)
> confidentiality now being routinely and contractually provided to
> RIPE members... even, apparently, utterly fictitious and fradulent
> ones... who make off with resources, counter to current allocation
> policies, via fraud, deceit, or artifice.  All of a sudden you seem
> to be worried about _my_ confi- dentiality, or lack thereof, or
> forfiture thereof.

No, I'm not worried about your confidentiality, however I was trying to
think of potential misuse of the system.

For example, I might falsely report abuse by a competitor, in order to
tarnish their name, and cost them time & money dealing with the report.
Because of this, it is in people's interest to have the identity of the
abuse reporter public to avoid this issue.

HOWEVER, there is also a place for anonymous abuse reporting. People
may notice something "funny", but not really be interested in spending
a lot of their own effort resolving it. Consider it like an anonymous
tip-line that some police departments set up.

So when evaluating reports of an LIR's abuse, one could see anonymous
reports but view with an additional level of skepticism.

> You have a solution in search of a problem.

Well, the main point of the proposal is to have a public archive of
abuse reports to the RIPE NCC, not anonymity. The problem that I was
attempting to solve is the utter lack of transparency in abuse
handling. I readily admit it is probably not the best! Please suggest
something else!

Cheers,

--
Shane