[db-wg] ORG record vetting ?

Ronald F. Guilmette via db-wg wrote on 29/07/2019 18:39:
> In that document section 1.1 (a) seem to the one one and only section
> relevant to my question:
> 
>      a. Proof of establishment/registration
> 
>      Normally, proof of establishment of a legal person can be registration
>      with the national authorities (e.g., a recent extract from the Commercial
>      Trade Register or equivalent document proving registration with the
>      national authorities). When this is not available, other proof of
>      establishment may be required (e.g., the law according to which the
>      legal person was established).
> 
> That last sentence is quite obviously an attempt... and a rather feeble one,
> in my personal estimation... to cleverly dance around the exact inconvenient
> question that I raised.  "When this is not available..."  Yes.  When the
> entity -claims- to be incorporated in Malta, or Cyprus, or Liechtenstein,
> or Gurnesy, or the Isle of Man, or... then what happens, exactly?

what happens, exactly, is what happens for an organisation from any 
other country: the entity is required to provide registration documents 
from legal authorities in those countries.  This is usually checked 
against live online registers and usually requires back-up documentation 
such as Letters of Good Standing from legal authorities.  As the 
countries that you mention have actual legal frameworks for handling 
things like this, all will have appropriate authorities which can issue 
enough identification documentation for the RIPE NCC to carry out due 
diligence on the organisation in question.

Note that "due diligence" is about exercising a reasonable degree of 
care.  It's not about guaranteeing something 100%, because that isn't 
possible in practice.

The "When this is not available" bit is used for organisations which 
don't have entries in trade registers, etc.  So for example, 
ORG-IG30-RIPE (The Irish Government) won't have an entry in the local 
companies registry or a company number, or some other registration entry 
with a national authorities - because it _is_ the national authority.

There are lots of these outlier cases which is why the RIPE NCC provides 
a reasonable workaround for organisations or legal persons which don't 
fit into the usual buckets.

> I'm sorry
> to have to say it, but this notion of organization vetting in the RIPE
> region is so evidently riddled with loopholes that I personally feel that
> it is deserving of the same derision.

If you're going to cast aspersions at the ripe ncc, please do yourself a 
favour and back them up with evidence rather than supposition and 
misunderstanding.

Also, the RIPE NCC has lots of documentation.  You could learn about how 
it operates by reading some of it.

Nick