I think we are missing the main point rfg raised and going around in circles about transparency. How do we give enough teeth to ripe ncc's audit processes, and it's ip allocation processes, especially through LIRs, so that the issue we are concerned about is mitigated? --srs (htc one x) <div class="gmail_quote">On 22-Jan-2013 4:47 AM, "Sander Steffann" <<a href="mailto:sander@steffann.nl">sander@steffann.nl</a>> wrote: <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"> Hi, > The harder problem is the one that I was trying to raise, and that I > think crys out far more for a solution, i.e. the fact that once some > resource allocation funny business is reported to RIPE (or to ARIN > for that matter) that's the last that anybody ever hears of it. As > I've tried to point out, I think that this is distinctly counter- > productive, both because is discourages everybody from making any > such reports in the future and also because it absolutely minimizes > the disincentive for both the current perp and future perps to try > again to defaud RIPE. I agree. Showing which resources the NCC has received complaints about would be good for transparency. They would have to show the outcome after investigation as well though. An example: you complain about my IP space, this gets published on the RIPE website. Of course I'm innocent so the RIPE NCC will investigate the case and conclude that there is nothing wrong. I wouldn't want the complaint to disappear from the website because that would not be very transparent. But I would really object to the complaint being visible on the website without a note saying: "investigated, found nothing wrong"... I don't mind people complaining, but I do want my name cleared if I'm innocent! ;-) Cheers, Sander </blockquote></div>