[anti-abuse-wg] Definition of Abuse

Hi Ronald,

We would just like to highlight that the prefixes you have listed are 
all inetnum objects with the status “ASSIGNED PA”. This means they were 
distributed by one of our members from their allocation to another party.

The RIPE NCC performs due diligence on the organisations that we 
directly distribute resources to (our members*). Our members are 
responsible for performing similar due diligence checks on their 
customers. This means that any reports or complaints should be directed 
to the LIR that issued these resources and performed the checks.

In the RIPE Database you can find which LIR is responsible for the 
encompassing block:
https://apps.db.ripe.net/search/query.html

When querying for a prefix, click on the Hierarchy Flags tab and select 
"l - Returns first level less specific inetnum, inet6num or route(6) 
objects, excluding exact matches."

This gives you the allocation object with contact information for the LIR.

Kind regards

Ingrid Wijte
Registration Services Assistant Manager
RIPE NCC

*We also perform due diligence checks on End Users of Provider 
Independent (PI) resources, but that is not relevant here.


On 17/08/2016 05:57, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
> In message <30F4A3CE-4188-4E10-BD70-410EC05BF993 at gmail.com>,
> Suresh Ramasubramanian <ops.lists at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Ron has presented several issues as he sees them. It is now up to ripe ncc to
>> see what action if any to take on this cidr based on, say, inaccurate
>> information presented in the paperwork.
> Just two small clarifications:
>
> 1) First, Suresh, you said "this cidr" (singular).  Just to clarify, my
> concern is actually with all of these:
>
> ORANGEWEB:
> 82.221.102.192/26
> 82.221.103.208/29
> 82.221.104.0/25
> 82.221.130.64/26
> 213.182.41.144/29
> 213.182.41.160/28
> 213.215.7.36/30
> 213.215.14.44/30
>
> IS-ORANGEWEBSITE:
> 82.221.104.128/29
> 82.221.105.0/24
> 82.221.106.224/29
> 82.221.108.32/28
> 82.221.111.0/24
> 82.221.128.0/23
> 82.221.131.0/24
> 82.221.133.128/25
> 82.221.134.0/29
> 82.221.136.0/24
> 82.221.139.0/24
> 82.221.143.0/24
>
> All of the above are registered to the same single alleged Belize company,
> however as far as I have been able to determine, there exists no public
> registry of Belize companies, and the Belize governmental Companies
> Registry office does not even respond to email inquiries, which leaves
> open the question of what sorts of magic, astrology, witchcraft, or the
> reading the the entrails of disembowled routers RIPE NCC staff members
> employ when they attempt to merely verify the legal existance of such
> companies... mysterious procedures which all of us mere unwashed mortals
> are apparently not privy to, unless one happens to know the secret
> handshake, I guess.
>
> This is all about as transparent as concrete.
>
>
> 2)  I actually don't anticipate RIPE NCC doing anything ay all about any
> of this for the simple reason that I haven't personally filed a formal
> "complaint" about any of this, nor am I at all likely to do so.  Thus,
> RIPE NCC staff has no basis, at present, upon which to take any action
> whatsoever.
>
> I haven't and won't file a "complaint" about any of this because, I mean,
> who wants to be either known as, or treated as an annoying "complainer"?
> I sure don't.
>
> I object to the entire notion of a "complaint form".  If I want to fill
> out one of those, I'll go down and stand in line at the DMV.
>
> If there ever comes to be such a thing as a RIPE "report form" however,
> I may use it someday to alert community members and RIPE NCC staff
> about things that I think the community would benefit from looking at
> more closely.  But it is not my intent to *force* anyone in either
> RIPE NCC or the RIPE community to look at stuff they might benefit
> from looking at.  I've donated a great deal of personal time to trying
> to find the truth, for the benefit of Internet users everywhere.  If
> people in authority @ RIPE NCC don't want to look at what I've found,
> then I'm not gonna go jamming it down anybody's throat via a "complainers
> form".  This isn't Walmart and I refuse to stand in the "complainers"
> line or to be labeled as a "complainer" just because I selflessly
> tried to do something good for my fellow homo sapiens.
>
> In fact, I only even posted the specifics of what I believe is shady
> about OrangeWebHost in response to Dave Crocker's request for people
> to post examples of what they, as individuals, perceive as "abuse".
>
>
> Regards,
> rfg
>