[anti-abuse-wg] WHOIS (AS204224)
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] WHOIS (AS204224)
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] WHOIS (AS204224)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Ronald F. Guilmette
rfg at tristatelogic.com
Thu Nov 5 22:50:37 CET 2015
In message <20151104184211.GM47126 at cilantro.c4inet.net>, "Sascha Luck [ml]" <aawg at c4inet.net> wrote: >A few people or companies who act in bad faith do not change this >fact and there is no reason to put the entire membership under >general suspicion and waste its time and fees with elaborate data >collection / verification schemes. > >In the absence of any hard evidence to the contrary (beyond one >or two suspicious cases) *that* is the basis on which this >discussion should be maintained. It has been well more than just one or two cases, and I suspect that you know that. Only one or two GLARING cases per month perhaps, but over time it has added up. >Besides, even business data is somewhat sensitive. Where else >outside the LIR/RIR world do businesses have to maintain all >information about all of their business relationships in a public >database? I, for one, was not aware that RIPE (or RIPE NCC) required businesses to "maintain ALL information about ALL of their business relationships in a public database". If you could elaborate, I feel sure that it would be illuminating, for me at least. >... All the mntner object does is >grant access to change a ripedb object. It says nothing about who >operates a resource or what they are doing with it. The above two sentences are simply and demonstratably false. I have the evidence to prove both statements false. Unfortunately, I am not at liberty to share that evidence just yet. Regards, rfg
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] WHOIS (AS204224)
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] WHOIS (AS204224)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]