[anti-abuse-wg] WHOIS (AS204224)

On Fri, Nov 06, 2015 at 10:01:33AM -0500, Jeffrey Race wrote:
>At present the internet is a cesspool  of crime without
>effective mechanisms of accountability and traceability.   An

As an, albeit small, part of the Internet, I take exception to
this statement. 

>outsider viewing this thread (and the dozens of others I've been
>monitoring for more than a decade) would find remarkable the
>unspoken assumption of their discussions: how to make life
>trouble-free for the registration and contracting bodies, even
>though this makes inevitable the criminal nature of the
>mechanism they are charged with managing.

The internet resource management mechanism as managed by RIRs and
LIRS is "of a criminal nature", do I understand you correctly? 

>With a proper goal in mind ("Develop our mechanisms so the
>internet is no longer a cesspool of crime") the kind of
>discussion below ("We can't consider that because it would be a
>lot of work and some people would become upset") would be out of
>bounds.

What discussion is out-of-bounds is not for you to determine,
sir.

>The matter of  the "defining discussion goal" will have to be
>taken up in order to make progress on this list's putative
>purpose of "anti-abuse."

Had you read the charter of this WG, you would have learned that
its purpose is to *discuss* abuse, not to stamp it out.
And I will say again, you will NOT define what the goals or
contents of discussion in this WG are.

rgds,
Sascha Luck

>
>Jeffrey Race
>
>
>On Fri, 6 Nov 2015 13:49:01 +0000, Sascha Luck [ml] wrote:
>
>>On Fri, Nov 06, 2015 at 11:56:51AM +0100, denis wrote:
>>>
>>>Add to that all the possible language issues and I am not sure
>>>how you will expect the RIPE NCC to validate all this personal
>>>contact data with people who they have no relationship with
>>>and who may have never heard of the RIPE NCC or RIPE. Anyone
>>>who receives an email from an organisation they have never
>>>heard of, possibly in a language they don't understand, asking
>>>to validate personal information...well you know how that will
>>>be treated these days.
>>
>>I've occasionally done db cleanup death-marches for customers
>>where I've created/updated/deleted 100 or so objects in a
>>single day. (usually with contact data relating to the LIR
>>which does have a contract with the NCC) Is the idea seriously
>>that someone doing this will have to field 100 phone calls or
>>reply to 100 emails over the day?
>>
>>What about the numerous LIRs who do their resource management
>>programatically, without human input?
>>
>>IMO, such actions would actually discourage proper resource
>>management and lower the quality of the db.
>>
>>>Also bear in mind a single data validation is quite pointless.
>>>What is valid today may not be tomorrow. So you cannot trust
>>>data that was validated yesterday. To have any benefit this
>>>data would have to be routinely re-validated. Given the
>>>quantity of personal data sets in the RIPE Database (we are
>>>talking millions), many of whom have never heard of the RIPE
>>>NCC, to ask them to undertake this exercise would result in
>>>the RIPE NCC being reported to many law enforcement
>>>authorities for phishing.
>>
>>Not even considering the inevitable members' revolt.
>>
>>rgds, Sascha Luck
>>
>
>
>