[db-wg] ORG record vetting ?

In message <B83C8F8C-C5C3-4AAA-B00F-07EA193AB943 at foobar.org>, 
Nick Hilliard via db-wg <db-wg at ripe.net> wrote:

>On 29 Jul 2019, at 12:02, Carlos Fria=C3=A7as <cfriacas at fccn.pt> wrote:
>>
>> Perhaps excluding jurisdictions *outside* the RIPE NCC service region, where
>> company related data *can't* be verified by the RIPE NCC.
>
>The RIPE NCC doesn't claim verification. It only states due diligence.

For some reason, the above comment reminds me of this very old and tired joke:

    MAN:  "Doctor, doctor!  What's wrong with me?"

    DOCTOR:  "Well, you evidently have a broken leg."

    MAN: "I want a second opinion!"

    DOCTOR:  "OK.  Also, you're an idiot."

Sounds like due diligence of the doctor's part to me! :-)

But seriously, one man's due diligence may be another man's slipshod
pantomime.  And it is not clear, to me at least, what the precise
meaning of "due diligence" is in the context of RIPE NCC and the
parties it is alleged to "vet".

Traditionally, the term "due diligence" is used in the business world
to denote an investigation relating to a merger or acqusition.  And it
involves, quite certainly, a detailed examination of all financial and
bank records.  I rather doubt that RIPE NCC ever undertakes any such
invasive interrogations of any parties that are just trying to get
some number resources.  So in this context, "due diligence" must have
some rather different meaning, and NOT it's traditional meaning from
the world of mergers and acqusitions.

What that meaning actually is, and or what it should be, in this context,
is something that I personally think could benefit from some more detailed
elaboration than what currently seems to be publicly available.

But that's just my opinion.


Regards,
rfg