Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
Which is what is sought to be addressed. Granted the due diligence exists, but the fact remains that there are botmasters and spammers who manage to game this process.
While the LIR revocation process exists, a more "user friendly" / transparent complaint handling mechanism and periodic audits might make things interesting
Again, the mechanism of audits does exist (since at least 1996) and is documented here: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-423?searchterm=lir+audit See section 4. Types, 3rd type: Reported Regarding "user friendly", I guess you do have a point here, as the AudiT Procedure document is maybe not easy to find, or the description of the technical procedue to use for "Reported" is not documented.
On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 7:04 PM, Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet <Woeber@cc.univie.ac.at> wrote:
But if you succeed in forging that type of documents, or if you succeed to get some "official entity" to help in doing that, the NCC is at the loosing end of the stick :-(
Actually, it might even be more useful to emphasise the "Reported" type over the "Random" type; assuming that the Community does exercise that channel responsibly and that this mechanism is not abused to bully some parties (and the NCC) for whatever unrelated reason. Hth, Wilfried.