In message <20151104184211.GM47126@cilantro.c4inet.net>, "Sascha Luck [ml]" <aawg@c4inet.net> wrote:
A few people or companies who act in bad faith do not change this fact and there is no reason to put the entire membership under general suspicion and waste its time and fees with elaborate data collection / verification schemes.
In the absence of any hard evidence to the contrary (beyond one or two suspicious cases) *that* is the basis on which this discussion should be maintained.
It has been well more than just one or two cases, and I suspect that you know that. Only one or two GLARING cases per month perhaps, but over time it has added up.
Besides, even business data is somewhat sensitive. Where else outside the LIR/RIR world do businesses have to maintain all information about all of their business relationships in a public database?
I, for one, was not aware that RIPE (or RIPE NCC) required businesses to "maintain ALL information about ALL of their business relationships in a public database". If you could elaborate, I feel sure that it would be illuminating, for me at least.
... All the mntner object does is grant access to change a ripedb object. It says nothing about who operates a resource or what they are doing with it.
The above two sentences are simply and demonstratably false. I have the evidence to prove both statements false. Unfortunately, I am not at liberty to share that evidence just yet. Regards, rfg