In message <20151102212059.GC47126@cilantro.c4inet.net>, "Sascha Luck [ml]" <aawg@c4inet.net> wrote:
On Mon, Nov 02, 2015 at 12:29:18PM -0800, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
Someone needs to CALL the phone number listed there and simply ask if Mr. Soloviev is available. Once he is on the line, someone needs to ask if he even works for Mashzavod Marketing Services, and if so, whether or not he or his company requested an AS from RIPE NCC in early July.
Do you actually operate a network? I think no, because then it would be obvious to you how utterly unmanageable such a setup would be. Do you seriously propose that DB objects can only be created during NCC business hours (8-17h MET, ttbomk)?
I do apologize. Apparently, I failed to make my meaning clear, and this in turn led you to rather entirely misconstrue my comments. I was most definitely *not* proposing that a manual, human-powered process be followed for the verification of each and every addition or change to the RIPE WHOIS data base. I agree with you completely that this would be ridiculously labor-intensive and, as you put it "unmanagable". Someone asked me how the WHOIS information which is already in the data base, specifically and only for AS204224, might be shown or demonstrated to be fradulent. I responded that if anyone really and truly wanted to know, or find out, IN THIS ONE VERY SPECIFIC CASE whether or not the WHOIS data if fraudlent, that somebody could very easily get up off his or her laurels, pick up the phone, and make a call. Again, I did not, by any stretch of the imagination, propose this manual approach might be something that could or should be used routinely. Someone asked how it could be known that AS204224, in particular, was/is fradulent. In response, I then described a simple and straightforward experiment that could be used in this one case to find an answer quickly, and to everyone's satisfaction. I did this only to illustrate just how silly it is to assert that "we cannot know" whether AS204224 is fradulent or not. (Of course we can know! This isn't some great and insoluable mystery like the meaning of life or the ultimate fate of the Universe after all.)
If you do believe you have evidence that there is something fraudulent going on, make a complaint here:
I do believe it. The available facts seem to rule out any other conclusion. But it seems to me perfectly and utterly pointless to me to waste either my time or that of RIPE NCC with a formal report about this one single and particular instance of fraudulent WHOIS data. There are many many other itmes in the RIPE WHOIS data base that are also fradulent or, at the very least, highly dubious also. What is the point of getting one single such record removed or corrected when the _process_ that allows such garbage to creep into the date base remains the same as it was yesterday, and the day before that, and the year before that, and so on? If the fraudulent record gets removed today, what is there to prevent the exact same fraudsters from coming back tomorrow, and just getting another set of brand new AS numbers, and creating yet another set of fradulent WHOIS records?
Instead I see pages of ridicule and demands to change the RIPEDB to something you want it to be.
I ridicule only that which is ridiculous. As regards to my request (not demand) that the RIPE data base be something that I want it to be, yes, you're right. I would very much like it to be something that it is not: Accurate.
Tell me, how much are you paying for access to the database? People like you are the very reason I am campaigning to make the database accessible to paying and identified members only.
Just curious. How is that campaign progressing? While I am sure that your proposal would be warmly welcomed by the totalitarian dictatorships, if any, which might still exist within the RIPE geographical region, I'm not sure that it will go over as well in the various open western-style liberal democracies that are common in the region. Oh! Wait! I just found the list of countries included in the RIPE region, and I see that Saudi Arabia is on the list. Qatar too! Certainly the Saudis, Qatar, Mr. Putin's Russia, and of course Luxembourg and Switzerland (both always keen to embrace secrecy) will most likely support your proposal. Others? Maybe not so much. Regards, rfg