In message <20160822231248.GD93886@cilantro.c4inet.net>, "Sascha Luck [ml]" <aawg@c4inet.net> wrote:
Your request is off-topic for this WG. The NCC is content-agnostic and "internet abuse" is not a reason to terminate a contract and close a LIR.
Not to disagree, but may I simply ask how you know that? I mean how do you know, to a moral certainty, that none of the (now former) seven RIPE NCC members who were terminated in 2015 and in 2016 for non-financial reasons were not terminated on the basis of "internet abuse"? Are you personally privy to the relevant internal RIPE NCC reports, final or otherwise, which elaborate the exact reasons for these seven terminations? If so, perhaps you would be willing to share those. If not, I can only suggest that you are making suppositions, albeit based upon good faith inferences, but that the actual facts, if revealed, might support alternative conclusions. (What _is_ known and what _is_ public knowledge appears to indicate that RIPE NCC's enforcement of its own well-established policies is, in essence, a black box... member entities go in one side, someone turns a crank, and some number of members come out the other side, but in a "terminated" state. Written and public policies describe, in sort-of vague general terms, what everyone hopes and wants to believe actually occurs within the black box, but at the end of the day, it's still a black box.)
It also concerns a contractual issue between the RIPE NCC and the member(s) in question. This is not the business of the RIPE community or any WG (other than, perhaps, ncc-services)
It has already been stipulated, by RIPE NCC legal itself, that RIPE NCC owes no ongoing duty of confidentiality to these seven now-terminated former member entities... all seven of whom have apparently tried to screw both RIPE NCC and the RIPE Community, i.e. by violating RIPE's own rules so badly that in the end, there was nothing left to do but to kick them all out entirely. Further, as the mere identities of these former non-person member entities was not, is not, and could never have been in any sense "confidential"... the purported identities of these corporate entities having been listed *both* in national corporate registries *and* also in RIPE NCC's own WHOIS data base... I confess that I do have a bit of trouble understanding the basis of the apparent reluctance to release even just the identities or identifying documents of these entities.
The NCC has, in the spirit of helpfulness, shown you some courtesy in providing certain information
Yes, well, so far, RIPE NCC legal has indeed been helpful in providing me with the information that they can provide me with -no- information about the seven terminated former member entities. (Excuse me for saying so, but If this is what passes for a "spirit of helpfulness" in your part of the world, then I do believe that I'll be scratching the Emerald Isle off of the itenerary for my next european vacation.) As regards to how this overall "spirit of helpfulness" pertains to the clear explanation, given here, of how either RIPE NCC or any LIR is able to magically vet the existance of, or identity of any purported Belizian or UAE "legal" entity, even where such vetting is rather obviously and provably impossible, like you I would applaud RIPE NCC Legal's helpfulness on this point if not for the unfortunate fact that I have yet to see any explanation of this abiding mystery posted here. Regards, rfg