Sander, On Sunday, 2013-01-20 22:37:44 +0100, Sander Steffann <sander@steffann.nl> wrote:
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.
I agree.
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
It does not seem to me that merely recording reclaimed resources is really going to get to the heart of the transparency problem. Perhaps something more like a couple of checkboxes on the complaint form which say: [ ] I wish this complaint to be public. [ ] I wish my name to be included in the public report. This way we could have an opt-in public archive of all abuse reports that the RIPE NCC has received. Consider it a sort of RIPE NCC version of the Google Transparency Report. :) http://www.google.com/transparencyreport/ Cheers, -- Shane