[anti-abuse-wg] audit proposals

Just a scenario. Which may be totally off the wall, to be sure.

--srs (htc one x)
On 26-Jun-2013 1:08 AM, "Ronald F. Guilmette" <rfg at tristatelogic.com> wrote:

>
> In message <
> CAArzuosEHQ6RYqnGwXWuCbGzuvqwEk9iH-tis948AcU00iL+fA at mail.gmail.com>
> Suresh Ramasubramanian <ops.lists at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Entirely depends on the audit's conclusions.
> >
> >1. Shell company in romania or the ukraine - "the documents say it is a
> >registered company". Stop.
> >
> >2. Hosting snowshoe spam or malware or whatever.  "the justification just
> >says "hosting". stop"
> >
> >:)
>
>
> I'm not grasping whatever point you were making Suresh.  Can I ask you
> to please take another whack at it?
>
> Were you saying that the current audit NCC policies would in fact "stop"
> an audit (and declare everything acceptable?) upon learning that the
> target of the audit is merely a properly registered company?
>
>
> Regards,
> rfg
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/anti-abuse-wg/attachments/20130626/fb3aaf7a/attachment.html>