Dear Ron, All your replies are so long, it makes me stop reading after the first paragraph. You got quite a few interesting things to say, but please try to say it short. I personally don't have time to read novels on mailing lists. Regards, Radu On 08/14/2016 11:02 AM, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:

Ms. Fragkouli,

Thank you for providing the Anti-Abuse Working Group with numerical information relating to your department's processing of "complaints" (which I personally prefer to call "reports") during 2016 and 2015.

Unfortunately, something seems to have been lost in translation, as my request made its way to you, and thus, the numbers you provided, although interesting, do not actually answer the questions that I was was interested in obtaining answers for, as I explain below.

In message <5b6fca31-1033-7120-efb0-7d7e0eb604fe@ripe.net>, Athina Fragkouli <athina.fragkouli@ripe.net> wrote:

...

So far in 2016... Around four memberships have been terminated for one of these other reasons (submitting fraudulent documents, failure to comply with audits or failure to supply proof of existence). Around four? Would it be possible for you to be a bit more specific?

...

In 2015, we received 319 reports through the form: - 131 were reported as incorrect data in the RIPE Database. 67 of these required further investigation by the RIPE NCC. - 180 cases were reported as policy violations, untruthful information or were related to bankruptcy. 143 of these cases turned out not to be policy violations, seven could not be followed up due to lack of information and five resulted in further inquiries. 25 did indeed concern policy violations, untruthful information, or bankruptcy. - Eight cases were not classified as abuse reports but were investigated nonetheless. It is always wonderful to have concrete numbers to work with, except of course in cases where the numbers in question have more to do with irrelevancies (e.g. the price of tea in China, as we say here) than they have to do with the actual topic at hand.

Ms. Fragkouli, I may perhaps be the only one, but I cannot help but notice that in and among all of the various figures you've quoted, authoritatively, above, there is no number which indicates -either- (a) the total number of cases in which RIPE NCC actually did take some action, i.e. -any- action, against any member in 2015 -or- (b) the specific number of cases in 2015 in which RIPE NCC took some action or actions against a member that was actually relevant to the interests and work of the Anti-Abuse Working Group specifically. (I don't believe that any of us here are really all that interested to know how many RIPE NCC members went bankrupt in 2015.)

Perhaps I have only failed to read your comments clearly... and if so, I do apologize for that... but whereas I see that you have clearly said how you and your department -categorized- all of the 2015 reports you processed, I do not see any clear statement from you about how many actual -actions- against members were instituted in 2015.

I would like to obtain that number, i.e. the number of actual 2015 actions, not counting financially-related ones.

Ms. Fragkouli, would it perhaps be possible for the RIPE NCC staff to provide a number... both for calendar 2015 and also, perhaps, for prior years... that would accurately reflect the number of cases (e.g. in 2015 at least) where RIPE NCC actually -did- take the action of discontinuing the membership of a member for reasons -other than- the non-payment of fees or bankruptcy?

To be sure we are clear, it is really only the total number of non- financial-related actual termination actions that are of interest here in the WG.

If you could provide those numbers, that would be most helpful.

I thank you in advance for your help and participation.

Regards, rfg

In message <fbc7a33c-98ba-18ca-dd70-7ab6d8ee3979@ripe.net>, Ingrid Wijte <ingrid@ripe.net> wrote:

We can confirm that exactly three memberships have been terminated so far in 2016 for “non-financial” reasons, and one further case is currently in process. We terminated four memberships in 2015. It is worth noting that so far we have never terminated a membership following a report from an external party — these terminations were the result of our own investigations regarding the submission of false or fraudulent information that were initiated after suspicious member activity.

Ms. Wijte, I can't thank you enough for following up on my queries. The information you've provided will be really very helpful, I think. Further to this whole discussion, I have just a couple of additional brief question about these seven fully completed non-financial member terminations that you have processed in 2015 and so far in 2016: First, among these seven completed non-financial member terminations, can you state how many of those cases involved members who were or are "natural persons"? Second, I am looking at this document which seems to be the current version of the RIPE Standard Service Agreement: https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-626 I am specifically looking at Section 9, "Term and Termination". I am not an attorney, so I hope that you can help me to correctly interpret that Section. In your opinion, would it be accurate to say that following the termination of one of these RIPE Standard Service Agreements RIPE NCC does not have any sort of ongoing "duty of care" with respect to the terminated member, I mean, you know, AFTER the termination? (I do not see anything in Section 9 that calls for any kind of ongoing duty which is binding upon either party, after termination of The Agreement, but perhaps I just missed something.) Thanks again for your input. I certainly find it most helpful, and I believe that others here will too. Regards, rfg

Ms. Wijte, Thanks so much for your further reply. I think that I have just one last question... In message <8cf746fe-be8a-4782-8213-7ce7d01d6908@ripe.net>, Ingrid Wijte <ingrid@ripe.net> wrote:

We can confirm that of these seven terminations {2015/2016}, none involved members who were natural persons.

OK. Good. That's what I suspected might be the case.

In accordance with article 9.5 of the Standard Service Agreement, when a membership is terminated we cease providing any RIPE NCC services and begin the deregistration procedure according to section B. of “Closure of Members, Deregistration of Internet Resources and Legacy Internet Resources”. Once the resources have been deregistered, we have no further contact or relationship with them and neither party has any ongoing duty to the other*.

OK. Good. That's what I suspected might be the case. So, given that (a) none of the seven RIPE NCC members who were terminated for non-financial reasons in 2015 & 2016 (a) were "natural persons", also also (b) that RIPE NCC owes -no- ongoing duty of care to any of these seven terminated member entities, would it be possible for RIPE NCC to release, e.g to the Anti-Abuse Working Group, copies of the various bona fide documents relating to just these seven non-financially-terminated former members, e.g. so that members of the Anti-Abuse Working Group could study them, e.g. to look for patterns which might help to reduce future problems and incidents of the kind(s) that were caused by these seven former (and now terminated) members? Regards, rfg

In message <e6dccd6b-a4d4-6900-b6ba-8389a4adb934@ripe.net>, Ingrid Wijte <ingrid@ripe.net> wrote:

The RIPE NCC does not disclose non-public information on a voluntary basis. We are unable to share this with the working group.

Ms. Wijte, Let us be clear about this. We are discussing seven cases from 2015 and 2016 in which some legal entity behaved so badly that it actually had its membership terminated by RIPE NCC for non-financial reasons. As you have already stipulated, these entities are not natural persons, and thus, EU personal privacy regulations do not apply to any of these cases. Separately and additionally, you have stated that RIPE NCC is under no ongoing legal obligation whatsoever with respect to these seven entities. More to the point however, although RIPE NCC may indeed wish, as a matter of policy, to refrain from disclosing "non-public information", any such policy is obviously, demonstratably, and utterly irrelevant to the request I have made. I am compelled to call your attention to the fact that within essentially all of the countries that comprise the RIPE geographical region, governmental records of the legitimate existance of legally established business and non-profit entities... including even RIPE NCC itself... are in fact open public records. Thus, it would appear, RIPE NCC legal staff is now placing itself in the rather awkard position of refusing to release records which, by their very nature, are public governmental records, i.e. those which merely attest to the bare legal existance of these seven former, and now terminated, RIPE NCC members. Given these facts, I ask you again to provide to the Anti-Abuse Working Group the various bona fides documents which these seven dubious "legal" entities used when they originally applied for their now terminated RIPE NCC memberships. There is no compelling reason, either as a matter of law, or as a matter of policy, for RIPE NCC legal staff to deliberately withhold what are in fact public governmental records and documents. Should the RIPE NCC legal staff continue to do so, then I believe that action will call into question the legal staff's true motivations with respect to this matter. Thus, I reiterate my request yet again, and ask you, in your capacity as a representative of the RIPE NCC legal staff, to provide these documents to the Working Group without further delay. Regards, rfg

Sergey, [ apologies for commenting on an old thread - I just got back from vacation ] At 2016-08-22 23:27:01 +0300 Sergey <gforgx@fotontel.ru> wrote:

As a representative of a RIPE member, LIR ru.fotontelecom, I'd like to express my full agreement with Ronald F. Guilmette that the information on terminated membership MUST be publicly available, otherwise it leads to conclusion that RIPE NCC is playing games with both membership and those abusers which they were receiving money from.

As a representative of a RIPE NCC member maybe you could bring this up with other RIPE NCC members in whatever forum you guys do that stuff? (I haven't ever been such a person so I don't know how it works.) I'm in favor of maximum transparency, but it seems like something outside of the scope of RIPE, and something that the RIPE NCC needs to sort out. :)

I fully understand that this is a serious accusation, but I can't find any other reason for RIPE NCC to justify obscuring this data.

If you just mean the names of the LIR with terminated memberships and (maybe) the dates of termination then I agree it makes sense if it is part of the public record as claimed by Ronald. I can imagine all kinds of reasons why additional data could be considered private. But again, this is something for RIPE NCC members to figure out! Cheers, -- Shane

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