Suresh Just because an entity isn't based in the EU / RIPE region doesn't mean that they are up to no good or that they don't have a valid reason to have an allocation We have clients from over 120 countries and obviously a lot of those countries are outside the RIPE region. Assuming that my non-RIPE region clients are up to no good is a dangerous assumption. It also assumes that those from within the RIPE region are "kosher". I would agree with you, however, that reporting potential issues should be made as easy as possible. Regards Michele -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting & Colocation, Brand Protection http://www.blacknight.com/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://mneylon.tel/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Locall: 1850 929 929 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Fax. +353 (0) 1 4811 763 Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845 ________________________________ From: anti-abuse-wg-bounces@ripe.net [anti-abuse-wg-bounces@ripe.net] on behalf of Suresh Ramasubramanian [ops.lists@gmail.com] Sent: 07 April 2012 02:42 To: Joe St Sauver Cc: fw@deneb.enyo.de; anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net Subject: {Disarmed} Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Introducing the RIPE NCC Report Form i agree. RIPE NCC shouldnt be trying to make it this hard to report things to them RIPE should be relying on its LIRs to reach out to customers with incomplete whois records, and possibly also collecting information on how many allocations with totally fake addresses (maildrops, empty lots) are made by a single LIR. Especially for /17 and larger, or /16 and larger netblocks. And also, a closer look at netblocks assigned to entities that are outside the normal geographical area that ripe serves. like MailScanner has detected a possible fraud attempt from "95.130.120.0" claiming to be 95.130.120.0/21<http://95.130.120.0/21> registered to some entity apparently in Panama --srs On Saturday, April 7, 2012, Joe St Sauver wrote: Florian commented: #I looked at "Incorrect contact information in the RIPE Database", and #"I confirm that I have reported the incorrect information to all of #the contacts listed in the relevant object" is a required checkbox. # #This seems to require that complainants try postal addresses, phone #and fax numbers before reporting errors in email addresses. Is this #really your goal? Isn't this a step backwards? I agree.
From my POV, each data element should be treated independently. The existence of a valid FAX number, for example, should not offset or eliminate the importance (or the reportability) of working to correct an invalid/non-deliverable email address.
Similarly, having found an invalid field in the whois, the reporter's "responsibility" should be considered discharged upon their identifying and reporting that data to RIPE. They should not be expected to exhaust all potential contact methods, or to make multiple attempts to the broken contact channel, or to hypothetically attempt to visit the listed address in person, :-), just in order to be eligible to report a problem with data of record. The goal should be correcting potentially bad data, not making it hard to report bad data or shifting work back upon public spirited community volunteers. Regards, Joe -- Suresh Ramasubramanian (ops.lists@gmail.com<mailto:ops.lists@gmail.com>)