Colleagues, The Discussion Phase for 2011-06 (Abuse Contact Management in the RIPE NCC Database) has ended and thank you all for your input so far. The next step is to move to Review Phase and to ask the NCC to provide an Impact Analysis for the policy. This has been requested and while we don't have an estimated delivery date for this report, I hope to be able to set expectations soon. The move to Review Phase does not mean that discussion should stop, indeed I encourage you to continue to discuss the policy and certainly I hope that the input from the NCC will answer some of the questions that have already been raised. Thanks, Brian, Co-Chair, AA-WG
I am interested in information about security and privacy of whois databases (domains and IP addresses). For instance, the legal authorities associated with the warning banners, blocking schemes and other limitations placed on the data. As well as court decisions, official rulings, etc. as it relates to privacy laws (including the packaging and resale of historical data). Also any working groups, etc. involving whois. The information is being compiled at http://WhoisSecurity.com Thank You
Dear Anonymous Person And you are who exactly? You're sending an email without identifying who you are in any way and you're asking an incredibly vague and broad question. Sorry, but my reply for now would be to go to http://www.google.com 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 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 lists@help.org [lists@help.org] Sent: 01 June 2012 10:06 To: anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net Subject: [anti-abuse-wg] WhoisSecurity.com I am interested in information about security and privacy of whois databases (domains and IP addresses). For instance, the legal authorities associated with the warning banners, blocking schemes and other limitations placed on the data. As well as court decisions, official rulings, etc. as it relates to privacy laws (including the packaging and resale of historical data). Also any working groups, etc. involving whois. The information is being compiled at http://WhoisSecurity.com Thank You
dear anonymous - perhaps this helps you - http://bit.ly/LkSWET br - dominique On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 12:10 PM, "Michele Neylon :: Blacknight" < michele@blacknight.ie> wrote:
Dear Anonymous Person
And you are who exactly?
You're sending an email without identifying who you are in any way and you're asking an incredibly vague and broad question.
Sorry, but my reply for now would be to go to http://www.google.com
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 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 lists@help.org [lists@help.org] Sent: 01 June 2012 10:06 To: anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net Subject: [anti-abuse-wg] WhoisSecurity.com
I am interested in information about security and privacy of whois databases (domains and IP addresses). For instance, the legal authorities associated with the warning banners, blocking schemes and other limitations placed on the data. As well as court decisions, official rulings, etc. as it relates to privacy laws (including the packaging and resale of historical data). Also any working groups, etc. involving whois. The information is being compiled at http://WhoisSecurity.com
Thank You
Spam detection software, running on the system "relay1.emswitch.net", has checked this incoming email. If you have any questions, contact helpdesk@emswitch.net for details.
Content analysis details: (-4.9 points, 3.5 threshold)
pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -0.0 T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay domain -4.9 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] 0.0 AWL AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If this message should have been marked as spam, click the following link to let the software learn from this message:
http://www.emswitch.nl/sa/index.php?learn=spam&srv=relay1.emswitch.net&msgid=2012-06-01-12.11.09-001
Hello, "lists@help.org" wrote the following on 01/06/2012 10:06:
I am interested in information about security and privacy of whois databases (domains and IP addresses). For instance, the legal authorities associated with the warning banners, blocking schemes and other limitations placed on the data. As well as court decisions, official rulings, etc. as it relates to privacy laws (including the packaging and resale of historical data). Also any working groups, etc. involving whois. The information is being compiled at http://WhoisSecurity.com
While this list does not require introductions or anything of the sort, it is always nice to at least have a name for a poster. Like I said, it isn't required, but it might facilitate discussion if people had some idea who they're talking to, if that makes any sense? This is especially useful when you're asking such a broad question. Anyway, aside from that, the current position in the RIPE Region is given here: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/groups/tf/dp/report-of-the-ripe-data-protection-tas... and https://www.ripe.net/data-tools/support/documentation/legal-framework-and-pr... However at the RIPE meeting in Ljubljana (RIPE 65), the RIPE NCC were asked to take another look at this and I hope to be able to update the WG soon on timelines for this 2nd look. Brian, Co-chair, RIPE AA-WG
While this list does not require introductions or anything of the sort, it is always nice to at least have a name for a poster. Like I said, it isn't required, but it might facilitate discussion if people had some idea who they're talking >to, if that makes any sense? This is especially useful when you're asking such a broad question.
No, that does not make sense. The site is compiling resources and the name of the people compiling the resources is not relevant. You just want that information so you and people like Michele Neylon and Dominque Custers can attempt to ridicule the people developing the site. You guys do this to divert attention from the misinformation being presented about this issue. The RIPE reports on this issue are worthless and the reasons are explained at: http://whoissecurity.com/europeans-restrict-ip-address-whois-data/ http://whoissecurity.com/historical-whois-data-and-privacy-laws/ As for the whois scraping and the packaging and resale of whois data see http://whoissecurity.com/historical-whois-data-look-who-sells-it/ So as you can see the issues are already researched to a certain extent but I am sure things have been missed. Please use the form submission at the site since I do not monitor this list all the time.
Just as I suspected, all the big mouths who shoot their mouth off all the time are unable to provide even a single additional reference related to whois. It is about time this stuff got published so people can see how RIPE and others have been deceiving them all these years. But I am sure it will all be corrected at the next meeting ... Have fun with your list pretending to be a group of "professionals" representing the entire Internet community. I am sure the work being done here is very important to your development: http://www.scholastic.com/resources/article/the-importance-of-pretend-play
On 01/06/2012 16:18, lists@help.org wrote:
While this list does not require introductions or anything of the sort, it is always nice to at least have a name for a poster. Like I said, it isn't required, but it might facilitate discussion if people had some idea who they're talking >to, if that makes any sense? This is especially useful when you're asking such a broad question.
No, that does not make sense. The site is compiling resources and the name of the people compiling the resources is not relevant. You just want that information so you and people like Michele Neylon and Dominque Custers can attempt to ridicule the people developing the site. You guys do this to divert attention from the misinformation being presented about this issue.
I think it facilitates discussion, you disagree, that's up to you, but I think the reactions of the list so far suggest that it does. Anyway, I merely suggested it would help, I didn't request any information.
The RIPE reports on this issue are worthless and the reasons are explained at:
http://whoissecurity.com/europeans-restrict-ip-address-whois-data/ http://whoissecurity.com/historical-whois-data-and-privacy-laws/
As for the whois scraping and the packaging and resale of whois data see
http://whoissecurity.com/historical-whois-data-look-who-sells-it/
So as you can see the issues are already researched to a certain extent but I am sure things have been missed.
And as I mentioned the community have asked for a more detailed response from the NCC and I'm hoping to have timelines for this soon. This request came directly from conversation on this list.
Please use the form submission at the site since I do not monitor this list all the time.
I and the NCC will be reporting back to this list and possibly the NCC Services list. We won't be updating any forms on your website and that would be not only impractical but also not work I'm willing to undertake. My and Tobias' responsibility is to this group, not a random website. Brian.
I and the NCC will be reporting back to this list and possibly the NCC Services list. We won't be updating any forms on your website and that would be not only impractical but also not work I'm willing to undertake. My and >Tobias' responsibility is to this group, not a random website.
You and others on here always suggest that if a problem is detected then the community should do something to fix it. Now you want to change your story once that gets done and you don't agree with it. The reason for the web site is because the information being posted here in incomplete and, in some cases, intentionally deceptive. Several people have recently posted external web site and they have not been met with all the complaints I see here. Mr. Veseley is the only person to submit any kind of legitimate response. I have been going through the weirds and I see some interesting stuff. I will be going through all the RIR's and adding links to their whois processes. I also see there is a survey and comment period for revamping the whois system (http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/draft-whois-requirements-survey-...). once I prepare my comments for that i will be updating WhoisSecurity.com with the weirds stuff. Finally, Mr. Nisbet, you should not use the word "responsibility" when you refer to yourself as you are completely irresponsible. Thank You
On 03/06/2012 22:54, lists@help.org wrote:
I and the NCC will be reporting back to this list and possibly the NCC Services list. We won't be updating any forms on your website and that would be not only impractical but also not work I'm willing to undertake. My and >Tobias' responsibility is to this group, not a random website.
You and others on here always suggest that if a problem is detected then the community should do something to fix it. Now you want to change your story once that gets done and you don't agree with it. The reason for the web site is because the information being posted here in incomplete and, in some cases, intentionally deceptive. Several people have recently posted external web site and they have not been met with all the complaints I see here. Mr. Veseley is the only person to submit any kind of legitimate response. I have been going through the weirds and I see some interesting stuff. I will be going through all the RIR's and adding links to their whois processes. I also see there is a survey and comment period for revamping the whois system (http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/draft-whois-requirements-survey-...). once I prepare my comments for that i will be updating WhoisSecurity.com with the weirds stuff.
I find it truly baffling that you can take my words and twist them in the way you've managed. What the community has said has been taken on board, we've asked the NCC to put in the work to fully explain the reasons behind the current data protection procedures. This update, when complete, will be posted on ripe.net and reported here. I have made no comments against your website, good luck with it, what I've said is that we (or likely the NCC) will be reporting back to this list, not filling in a webform. I'm sorry if this angers you in some way I can't fathom. This is the last time I'll state this in this thread.
Finally, Mr. Nisbet, you should not use the word "responsibility" when you refer to yourself as you are completely irresponsible.
Brian is fine. If you have to go for ad hominem attacks, please don't dress them in false formality. However, for preference, as stated many times, please don't indulge in them on this mailing list. And I say this in full knowledge of the fact that you'll likely just claim I'm still trying to silence you. Brian, Co-chair, RIPE AA-WG.
we've asked the NCC to put in the work to fully explain the reasons behind the current data protection procedures. This update, when complete, will be posted on ripe.net and reported here. I have made no comments against >your website,
NCC already did that and they posted it at http://www.ripe.net/data-tools/support/documentation/legal-framework-and-pro... It is worthless which is why i saw the need to put a site together. Plus there is this issue where the whois data (including RIPE) is being packaged and resold even though the banners say that should not be done. When I bring this up to various whois operators they don't do anything. So what is the point of the banners? What is the legal authority behind them? This has gone of for years so I find it hard to believe that RIPE is suddenly going to answer the question. Neustar brought in a privacy officer after I complained about .us. CIRA (.ca) says it against their AUP so I am waiting to hear back from them as well. You came on here and posted a message that you would not participate in my web site even though you did not do that when others posted web sites on here. You are like the kid who brought a soccer ball to the playground and then takes the ball home when things didn't go his way.
On 04/06/2012 02:46, lists@help.org wrote:
we've asked the NCC to put in the work to fully explain the reasons behind the current data protection procedures. This update, when complete, will be posted on ripe.net and reported here. I have made no comments against >your website,
NCC already did that and they posted it at http://www.ripe.net/data-tools/support/documentation/legal-framework-and-pro...
It is worthless which is why i saw the need to put a site together. Plus there is this issue where the whois data (including RIPE) is being packaged and resold even though the banners say that should not be done. When I bring this up to various whois operators they don't do anything. So what is the point of the banners? What is the legal authority behind them? This has gone of for years so I find it hard to believe that RIPE is suddenly going to answer the question. Neustar brought in a privacy officer after I complained about .us. CIRA (.ca) says it against their AUP so I am waiting to hear back from them as well.
Ok, one last time then. There were comments made on this list before the RIPE 64 meeting in regards to the information listed in the URL above. So, at that meeting, the NCC were asked to provide further information and far more details about the specific laws being followed. At this point I do not have a timeline for this response, but hopefully I'll be able to inform the list soon.
You came on here and posted a message that you would not participate in my web site even though you did not do that when others posted web sites on here. You are like the kid who brought a soccer ball to the playground and then takes the ball home when things didn't go his way.
No, you said that as you weren't always monitoring the list we would need to post any information to your website. I simply stated that as always we would report back to this list and I was not going to undertake to post the information directly to your website as well. I have not objected to you sharing your URL as I wouldn't object to anyone sharing a useful anti-abuse URL to this list. Brian.
participants (4)
-
"Michele Neylon :: Blacknight" -
Brian Nisbet -
Dominique Custers -
lists＠help.org