<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Hi all,<br>
<br>
Isn't LIRs already subject of auditing? Is the frequency of auditing
too low perhaps? <br>
<br>
If Ripes new abusefinder tool isn't sufficient enough I am sure they
welcome feedback. It is quite funny that the term webform has been
brought up. Previous abuse-discussions had topics like "we want to
require every abuse contact to be reachable by email". This only
tells me that there will never ever be any consensus about abuse
contact methods or standards this century.<br>
<br>
I have no idea of the RIPE country restrictions, but forcing a LIR
to go to a certain RIR when requesting resources - isn't that
monopoly? Since when is that good for anyone?<br>
<br>
I don't really want a public database of our LIRs allocations with
timestamped inetnums that goes back in time. If you want that kind
of information you can contact us directly, and if you do I might
tell you to contact the authorities first to get a warrant. I can't
think of very many reasons, if any at all, why you would need such
information without it having something to do with illegal
activities anyway. And that is someone elses job.<br>
<br>
We sometimes receive contact information requests from the
authorities. We receive these requests even though the contact
information is already available in the RIPE db or a simple
webbrowse to the IP-adress return the companys website with full
contactinfo. I am pretty sure this will never change even if RIPE
was forced and punished to make sure their database was correct. So
in my country, a public RIPE database with end-user allocation
information is probably only good for spamming. I would rather see
it more restrictive supporting internal identificators that can be
used in some sort of report system to a particular LIR instead of
requiring real contact information which is constantly subject to
change anyway.<br>
<br>
<br>
J<br>
<br>
<br>
On 09/29/10 09:01, Aftab Siddiqui wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:AANLkTinUgu0hctG6L4CEUSmmjb7_kBzRNk8EP8HZ35Aw@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div>Hello Tobias,</div>
<div> </div>
<div>yes, to my surprise as well the proposal didn't reach the
consenses at APNIC. But in my personal experience most of the
abuse reports we send are undelivered due to bad/incorrect
address. The reason for policy or web reporting is there, lets
see if majority acknowledges it or not. </div>
<div><br clear="all">
Regards,<br>
<br>
Aftab A. Siddiqui<br>
<br>
<br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_quote">2010/9/29 Tobias Knecht <span dir="ltr"><<a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:tk@abusix.com">tk@abusix.com</a>></span><br>
<blockquote style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204);
margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"
class="gmail_quote">Hi,<br>
<div class="im"><br>
>>> There's no webform for this, no, but if you
email <a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:ncc@ripe.net">ncc@ripe.net</a><br>
>>> and/or <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:abuse@ripe.net">abuse@ripe.net</a>, this
should get things to the right<br>
>>> person and it can go from there.<br>
>><br>
>> Given the number of cases I've reported to RIPE,
and the apparent<br>
>> inaction, I'm not convinced that either of those
would be a viable<br>
>> communications channel. Perhaps we do need a
webform. No doubt<br>
>> the RIPE NCC will protest that since there isn't a
policy that tells<br>
>> them to actually do anything about such cases,
there's no point us<br>
>> having a webform anyway.<br>
><br>
> Hummm... OK. I didn't realize things were that bad.<br>
<br>
</div>
It is! ;-)<br>
<div class="im"><br>
> So, ah, maybe the Right Place To Start would be for
somebody (perhaps<br>
> even this working group?) to propose at least some sort
of a policy<br>
> (e.g. on hijacked ASNs and/or address blocks) for
RIPE's consideration (?)<br>
><br>
> I do agree that in the absence of any policy to even
investigate, a web<br>
> form for submissions isn't going to help a lot.<br>
<br>
</div>
I have done a policy proposal for APNIC which was discussed in
the last<br>
meeting, but didn't find consensus. See more about this here:<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-084"
target="_blank">http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-084</a><br>
<br>
I think we should change that a bit and say: "RIPE is
responsible to<br>
keep up accuracy for the data held in the whois database!" The
means<br>
that RIPE has to find ways to do so.<br>
<br>
The above mentioned proposal by the way is in a similar way in
process<br>
at ARIN.<br>
<br>
If this working group thinks the policy proposal would be nice
for RIPE,<br>
let me know and I will make the needed changes.<br>
<br>
Thanks,<br>
<font color="#888888"><br>
Tobias<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</font></blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>