[anti-abuse-wg] Definition of Abuse

Oh, that's where the "we are not the document police" refrain comes in very useful as an expression of support.

--srs

> On 17-Aug-2016, at 4:16 PM, Ronald F. Guilmette <rfg at tristatelogic.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> In message <ADC89954-A8EE-4304-B4BC-74B12E74C58D at gmail.com>, 
> Suresh Ramasubramanian <ops.lists at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> There was this little kerfuffle some years back
>> 
>> http://www.pcworld.com/article/174651/article.html
> 
> Thanks LOTS Suresh!  I didn't know anthing about this till now, but this
> write-up is absolutely the funniest thing I've read all year so far,
> although the parts I think are hilarious are probably not the same
> ones that other people think are hilarious.  Examples:
> 
>     RIPE contends it was duped and that at the time, it was impossible
>     to tell that the front company wasn't legitimate.
> 
> What's the expression?  "Either lead, follow, or get out of the f***ing way."
> 
> If RIPE NCC is unable to tell if a company is real or not, perhaps they
> should farm out this part of their duties to a more experienced third-
> party subcontractor.  (I'm available. :-)
> 
>    That essentially made RIPE part of a money laundering operation...
> 
> And here we are, 7 years later, and this has changed how, exactly?
> 
>    RIPE does take measure to vet new applicants, but in the case of RBN,
>    "it's quite difficult to find those people if they are hidden behind
>    those shell companies and fake fronts," 
> 
> For some reason this reminds me of those child psychology experiments
> where researchers try to figure out at what age, on average, children
> begin to grasp the fact that when a ball is moved so that it is behind
> a visual barrier, it doesn't actually and physically disappear forever.
> 
> 
> Regards,
> rfg
> 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/anti-abuse-wg/attachments/20160817/1976c68b/attachment.html>