Hi Ronald,
As regards my reluntance to engage with RIPE NCC on any kind of a formal basis, although that too may be unforgivable, allow me to point out what I feel is a relevant point, specifically that the free flow of information is, as we here in the states would say, a two-way street... or should be anyway.
Since my original post on this matter, a RIPE NCC staff member has reached out to me, and in an informal manner I have appraised her throughly of the various lines of evidence that formed the basis of my suspicions about these specific 18 ASNs. In a follow-up to this, I inquired as to how much I might be told, and when, with regards to RIPE NCC's investigation of this matter, stating up-front that I understood that RIPR NCC staff might possibly labor under some of the same con- straints as ARIN staff do with regards to this kind of investigation, and their ability for be forthcoming, either publically or privately, about either investigation results, or actions taken. I was then politely informed that yes indeed, RIPE secrecy rules are not materially different from those of ARIN with respect to these kinds of investigations.
In short, it appears that none of us will ever know anything, either about how this happened, why it happened, who was responsible (within Romania) for causing it to happen, or what actions, if any, RIPE NCC will take in response to this matter. (I sort of feel like I want to use the term "this incident" rather than "this matter", but it appears that this has not been so much an "event" as it has been a process. The data seem to indicate that the fraudlent scheme I reported on has been ongoing for over two years now.)
Anyway, it may come as no surprise when I say that this information flow "one way street" is less than satisfying. In fact that would be an understatement. And if one thinks about it, this cloak of secrecy that hides all... all noble actions and all skullduggery, without discrimination... may be a part of the reason that other people of generosity and good intent, unlike me, do not waste their time on looking to deeply into funny stuff on this Internet, let alone reporting any such. Why bother when it is a forgone conclusion that the whole thing will be hushed up in the end anyway, and, as far as anyone of the outside knows, neither any drop of justice nor any dollop of disipline is ever dispensed.
Now *this* is something that might be solved by a policy proposal. How about a policy that states that a list of all resources reclaimed by/returned to/delegated to the RIPE NCC must be published? I don't know about the legal implications of also publishing the company name etc of the last holder, but how about a list containing: - Resource - Reclaimed date - Reason (received from IANA, returned by holder, violation of policy, bankruptcy, court order, non-payment, fraud/untruthful information, etc) - Returned to pool date I am trying to find the balance between avoiding legal trouble for the RIPE NCC (IANAL etc, so I don't know what is acceptable under Dutch law) and giving feedback and showing the community what is being done. The NCC already publishes the resources it allocates/assigns (output list). What I propose is that they also publish what they receive (input list). Showing both sides of the story would be part of good stewardship etc. /me looks at the worms crawling out of the can... What do you (=AAWG) think? Sander