[anti-abuse-wg] RIPE Charter

In message <20160822231248.GD93886 at cilantro.c4inet.net>, 
"Sascha Luck [ml]" <aawg at c4inet.net> wrote:

>Your request is off-topic for this WG. The NCC is
>content-agnostic and "internet abuse" is not a reason to
>terminate a contract and close a LIR.

Not to disagree, but may I simply ask how you know that?  I mean how
do you know, to a moral certainty, that none of the (now former)
seven RIPE NCC members who were terminated in 2015 and in 2016 for
non-financial reasons were not terminated on the basis of "internet
abuse"?

Are you personally privy to the relevant internal RIPE NCC reports,
final or otherwise, which elaborate the exact reasons for these
seven terminations?  If so, perhaps you would be willing to share
those.  If not, I can only suggest that you are making suppositions,
albeit based upon good faith inferences, but that the actual facts,
if revealed, might support alternative conclusions.

(What _is_ known and what _is_ public knowledge appears to indicate
that RIPE NCC's enforcement of its own well-established policies is,
in essence, a black box... member entities go in one side, someone
turns a crank, and some number of members come out the other side,
but in a "terminated" state.  Written and public policies describe,
in sort-of vague general terms, what everyone hopes and wants to
believe actually occurs within the black box, but at the end of the
day, it's still a black box.)

>It also concerns a contractual issue between the RIPE NCC and the
>member(s) in question. This is not the business of the RIPE
>community or any WG (other than, perhaps, ncc-services)

It has already been stipulated, by RIPE NCC legal itself, that
RIPE NCC owes no ongoing duty of confidentiality to these seven
now-terminated former member entities... all seven of whom have
apparently tried to screw both RIPE NCC and the RIPE Community,
i.e. by violating RIPE's own rules so badly that in the end, there
was nothing left to do but to kick them all out entirely.

Further, as the mere identities of these former non-person member
entities was not, is not, and could never have been in any sense
"confidential"...  the purported identities of these corporate
entities having been listed *both* in national corporate registries
*and* also in RIPE NCC's own WHOIS data base... I confess that I
do have a bit of trouble understanding the basis of the apparent
reluctance to release even just the identities or identifying
documents of these entities.

>The NCC has, in the spirit of helpfulness,  shown you some
>courtesy in providing certain information

Yes, well, so far, RIPE NCC legal has indeed been helpful in providing
me with the information that they can provide me with -no- information
about the seven terminated former member entities.  (Excuse me for
saying so, but If this is what passes for a "spirit of helpfulness" in
your part of the world, then I do believe that I'll be scratching the
Emerald Isle off of the itenerary for my next european vacation.)

As regards to how this overall "spirit of helpfulness" pertains to the
clear explanation, given here, of how either RIPE NCC or any LIR is able
to magically vet the existance of, or identity of any purported Belizian
or UAE "legal" entity, even where such vetting is rather obviously and
provably impossible, like you I would applaud RIPE NCC Legal's helpfulness
on this point if not for the unfortunate fact that I have yet to see any
explanation of this abiding mystery posted here.


Regards,
rfg