[anti-abuse-wg] Russian carding... no, Islandic carding... no Belizian carding!

In message <20160809153642.47730aa7 at envy.e1.y.home>,
Tore Anderson <tore at fud.no> wrote:

>Question is, what exactly do you expect the members of the RIPE
>Anti-Abuse WG to actually do about these incidents you keep on
>reporting? We are not law enforcement, nor are we likely to go to
>someone's door bearing baseball bats and pitch forks.

I'd like to see RIPE NCC repossess any and all number resources that
were allocated on the basis of fraud and/or deliberate deceit.

>If on the other hand you want to give the RIPE NCC the mandate to
>de-register address space assigned to suspected abusers, you'll need to
>write a policy proposal to that effect. It won't happen by itself.

Not from "suspected abusers" generally.  Not even from actual "abusers"
generally.

It would be utterly silly and pointless to try to get a resolution
passed which would create any kind of sanction against "abusers"...
let alone mere "suspected" ones... because this very working group
has steadfastly refused all invitations and entreaties in the past
to even try to do something as simple as defining the word "abuse".
Thus, it would only be good for a big laugh all around to say we're
gonna take back resources from those nasty lousey "abusers", because
around here, nobody even seems to know... or even wants to know...
what an "abuser" is, let alone who or what might actually be one.

It's like like what some U.S. Supreme Court justice once famously
said about pornography "I can't define it, but I know it when I
see it."  That seems to be the prevailing attitude about "abuse"
around here.

Obviously everybody who joined this mailing list has at least some
vague feeling that such a thing as "abuse" actually "is real" and
actually "does exist".  It's just that nobody here wants to try to
talk about it in any concrete terms... you know... using actual
human language.  (Based on past discussions, this seems to be due to
a sense of fear.  Nobody wants to say what they think "abuse" is, for
fear that somewhere, someday, somehow, somebody is actually going to
try to hold them, contractually, to that definition of "abuse" they
agreed with, back 10 or 20 years ago.  And you know, a lot of men
do have this problem relating to "committment".)

People on this list don't talk about "abuse".  They talk around it.

That's OK.  I've gotten over my own personal dismay about this, and
have moved on.  Even *I* don't want to talk about "abuse" anymore.
And at present, I am  *not* talking about "abuse".  I'm talking about
fraud.  Different subject entirely.  And not just any old fraud.  No,
no no!  I'm *only* talking about fraud perpetrated against RIPE and/or
RIPE NCC!

If all of you actual RIPE NCC members aren't even willing to entertain
a serious and adult discussion about even _that_ very narrow and limited
topic, then God help you all.  In that case you might as well just
publically declare the whole WHOIS data base a complete farce, hang up
your keyboards, and go for beer.


Regards,
rfg