[anti-abuse-wg] WHOIS (AS204224)

In message <B5889499-D9CA-4422-9F93-E926991F1A9D at heanet.ie>, 
Brian Nisbet <brian.nisbet at heanet.ie> wrote:

>This conversation has gone far beyond what can be considered acceptable on a
>community mailing list and far into ad hominem attacks.
>...
>This working group does not exist to change ICANN policy, it exists to create 
>& change RIPE policy, amongst other things.

Brian,

First let me say that I agree with you 100%.  Gratuitous ad hominem
attacks which attempt to impugn a person's background, ancestry,
religious or racial affiliation, or their fundamental honesty are
inappropriate, both here and now, and at all places and at all times.
I myself never make such personal attacks.  I do believe however that
in the case of someone who himself (or herself) elects to actively
engage in a debate about policy... policy which affects literally
billions of Internet users...  it is more than appropriate to at least
mention that person's possible direct financial interest in the
question at hand.  (If Donald Trump, currently running for President
of these United States, were to propose the elimination of all hotel
related taxes, I doubt that anyone would see it as being an ad hominem
attack to mention that such a policy might benefit his interests
personally.)

Mr. Neylon himself voluntarily entered into a discussion regarding
the pressure that had been applied, by registrars, to insure that
their contractual responsibilities for insuring WHOIS accuracy
would be minimized and minimal.  I pointed out that he might very
well have a personal financial interest in that issue.  I am not
at all apologetic for having done so.  It is a relevant fact which
subscribers have a right to know.

Second, I also must agree with you 100% that this is not exactly the
perfect place to discuss ICANN policy.  And I, for one, am perfectly
willing to refrain entirely from doing so in future.

However RIPE itself only holds its own position and authority by dint
of the charter which has been granted to it by IANA.  And IANA in turn
only holds its position and authority by dint of the charter which has
been granted to it by ICANN.  Thus, in short, it appears to me that
ICANN effectively sets the policy for everyone, and specifically
for all five of the Regional Internet Registries, including RIPE.

But we aren't talking about ICANN anymore.  Fine.  Let's talk about RIPE.

RIPE, of course, maintains it own WHOIS data base.  Let's talk about
that.  Let's talk about RIPE, and the polices and procedures that
RIPE NCC is currently following as it adds, removes, and modifies
entries in its own WHOIS data base.

As I have already made abundantly clear, the current policies of {the
entity which we are not discussing anymore} have rendered the domain
name WHOIS data base a joke.  It is perfectly useless in most cases
for actually identifying any bad actor, because there is no serious
verification of anything (other than disposable e-mail addresses) that
go into that data base.  In particular there is no verification
whatsoever of either street addresses or phone numbers.  Nobody even
contests this sad fact.

But we aren't talking about that.  So be it.  Let's change the subject
entirely.

What is the *RIPE* policy with respect to verification and/or validation
of *RIPE* WHOIS records?  Are RIPE and RIPE NCC simply following the lead
of the over-arching entity-that-shall-not-be-named?  Are RIPE and RIPE NCC
doing absolutely and positively NOTHING at all to verify or validate the
street addresses and phone numbers that appear in RIPE's own WHOIS data
base?

If anyone here even has the cajones to attempt an answer to the above
question, and/or if anyone here attempts to claim that RIPE _isn't_
allowing any and all unverified garbage into its own WHOIS data base,
then I am eager to have that person or persons explain to me the
deeply curious case of the RIPE WHOIS record for AS204224... which
I myself mentioned here a day or two ago.

Is anyone here either willing or able to defend _either_ the accuracy
and correctness of that specific RIPE WHOIS record _or_ the vetting
process that RIPE NCC applied to the data contained therein?

If so, please proceed.  I'm all ears.

>From where I am sitting however it appears me that the both the data
contained in the RIPE WHOIS record for AS204224 and also whatever
process RIPE NCC followed to validate that data are... not to put
too fine a point on it... nothing short of bovine excrement.

Forget ICANN.  Is _RIPE_ also a slacker when it comes to maintaining
its own WHOIS data base?  Are officially sanctioned RIPE policies and
procedures making to harder than it ought to be to stop, or even to
just merely identify criminals, con men, and spammers on the Internet?
If so, when was that decision ratified, and by whom?


Regards,
rfg


P.S.  The case of the WHOIS record for AS204224 is not, by any stretch
of the imagination, just a "one off" as the brits would say.  I am writing
a report now that will detail the utter and complete bogosity contained
in a number of other RIPE WHOIS records.  It is self-evident from these
examples that no checking of any kind is being performed by RIPE NCC
staff to insure that contact data which appears within the RIPE WHOIS
data base is anything other than untrustworthy baloney.