[anti-abuse-wg] WHOIS (AS204224)

Hi Sascha

On 04/11/2015 15:32, Sascha Luck [ml] wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 04, 2015 at 12:05:28AM +0000, ripedenis at yahoo.co.uk wrote:
>> the sponsoring LIR should be restricted to an LIR in the same
>> geographical/political/language area as the end user resource
>> holder. Otherwise it could render the whole notion of an LIR
>> validating their sponsored user's data pointless.
>
> IANAL, but I can't imagine that such a rule would even be legal
> under EU legislation. Common Market, remember? Considering that the
> Internet doesn't recognise any borders or
> political blocs, this is one of the more outlandish suggestions
> even for this forum.

That may well be right, but if the sponsor cannot understand the 
language of the resource holder the validation may not be very effective.

>
>> Interesting point about the creation of this ORGANISATION
>> object. It touches on an issue I have been trying to raise for a
>> number of years. But I am almost universally shouted down by
>> most of the vocal members of the RIPE community whenever I
>> mention it. Even though many less vocal members have privately
>
> Ah, "the majority agrees with me in email"

I never mentioned email or majority. 'Some' people I have talked to at 
RIPE Meetings have agreed with me. The majority will not even talk about it.

>
>> Sascha Caveat - “we are not the [xyz] police” .. in this
>> case, “the document police” .. a fine old trope, that.
>
> I didn't actually write this, your quoting appears to be broken.

My apologies it was in a reply 'to' you not from you.

>
>> Sander "I personally think that someone holding resources should
>> at least be identifiable in the DB,"
>>
>> I absolutely agree, but also anyone who partly manages any
>> aspect of a resource should be identifiable.
>
> No. Just NO. I am, frankly, flabbergasted at this mindset:
>
> 1) All resource holders are presumed to be bad actors and all of
> their data must be kept in a database, their correctness to be
> strictly enforced.

That seems to be the basis of this whole thread....not my assumption

>
> 2) It's no problem making this data available, for free, to every
> Tom, Dick & Harry with an internet connection.

I actually have some very strong views on making parts of the data in 
the RIPE Database private, but that is another proposal...

> The very idea that
> someone might use this data for nefarious purposes is obviously
> farcical.

You have a very negative and misguided view of what I am saying.

>
> There is a need to be able to reach a resource holder to notify
> them of abuse coming from their network (the abuse-c) or
> technical problems (the tech-c). There is NO need to have the
> street address and phone number of every *person* "who partly
> manages any aspect of a resource" in a public database, just to
> satisfy the curiosity of some curtain-twitcher or give actual
> criminals some data for ID theft purposes.

First of all I never said anything about personal data. Maybe you have 
not heard of the concept of business data. Maybe also you have never had 
problems trying to contact people regarding resources in the RIPE 
Database. The 2007-01 policy to contact all resource holders took about 
7 years to implement. I suspect many of them are uncontactable again by now.

The complexity of this database schema allows for many ways to hide 
yourself. By manipulating the relationship between PERSON, ROLE, MNTNER, 
ORGANISATION objects and building complex references and chains of 
objects it can become very difficult to find who to contact. Do you 
realise you can make a business out of a MNTNER object? If you 'own' the 
MNTNER object you can provide a service to other people. You put the 
password of some anonymous person into your MNTNER and this anonymous 
person can then maintain resources. As the 'owner' of the MNTNER you can 
claim you have nothing to do with the resource. You are simply providing 
a service to your customers. By creating a new MNTNER for each customer 
only they (and you) can manage their data. You try contacting that 
resource holder!! The RIPE NCC and maybe the sponsoring LIR knows who it 
is, but no one else does. A proper implementation of personalised auth 
and dropping the MNTNER object would solve this issue of anonymity. 
Unfortunately the watered down version of my original plan being offered 
now does not go far enough.

My main point was the chain of trust for resource holders and resource 
managers. Also being contactable does not mean personal contact data 
must be displayed to the public. There are many ways to be contactable. 
But few people are even willing to discuss possibilities when it comes 
to changing the data model.

cheers
denis

>
>> community and talks with the WG chairs. In the end, when the
>> RIPE NCC thinks it has worked out the best way to achieve the
>> policy, they present the final implementation plan with
>> timelines to the mailing list. If and when consensus is reached
>> on the implementation, the RIPE NCC will go ahead and do the
>> work.
>
> For completeness' sake, if the policy leads to changes in the
> members' contract or the Terms & Conditions, a membership vote at
> the GM is also required for implementation.
>
> rgds,
> Sascha Luck
>