Abuse contact information sense
Dear all, My name is Angel F. Pineda and I'm a new AA mailing list member. Although I have been reading the mailing list archive before to send this email, let me apologize because I'm sure the subjects I would like to present to the list has been commented before. Few days ago I sent a compliant to RIPE NCC because a LIR was not responding to my request about a copyright infringement from one of their assigned IPs, that I was sending to their email abuse contact information from the RIPE database. The response from RIPE NCC was that the abuse-c information exist, so it is enough from the RIPE's point of view, and it is not RIPE's matter if the LIR wants to answer or not to a request. If it is right, I would like to know what the aim of the abuse contact information is. Is it merely a formal question? Regards, Ángel F. Pineda P.S: I'm sending this email to this list because the person from RIPE NCC that attended me told me that: "The great thing about the regional internet registry system is that opinions like yours matter. If you think the RIPE NCC could/should do more as an regional internet registry, please bring this up in one of the RIPE community working groups: http://www.ripe.net/ripe If your idea receives support, it becomes a policy that the RIPE NCC then implements: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies We can then take action."
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 15/07/2014 10:56, Angel Fernandez Pineda wrote:
If it is right, I would like to know what the aim of the abuse contact information is. Is it merely a formal question?
Others may correct me, but the aim of the abuse-c contact information is that it provides a straightforward, standard and mandatory means for LIR's to list this information. At the same time it sends the message that the RIPE community thinks that this stuff is important and should be dealt with. You're right, it doesn't oblige anyone to actually do anything - but small steps are still progress and it's been good to see some real changes being made as a result of this working group. Ideas for the next small step are always welcome :) James - -- James Davis 0300 999 2340 (+44 1235 822340) Senior CSIRT Member Lumen House, Library Avenue, Didcot, Oxfordshire, OX11 0SG -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJTxQKuAAoJEHRLPxE0xhCCoPgIALyaxiSFQiGMRxpSJb/Y1fCy 9lCz7YHmvOt6fRWcFkgqE4mcBLpNyUsIEAX9kb2oc8yVbZTpH09r89eqzyS076UY GxKQVT/u6/NkCtMkQ5Zde1e/HfQ4R6VyChgoq0pQBqIFwGmfim6px8HavuU024Un rQr5OQZlnUwrSunUGxeii/n0u2jggWCTFJQYr5i6S7dPwn2TbCx06m4wH67hIDVU aliW1tm4z8mVD8SsZsUZgWMgZ3glnLFxPS7glX6HTo5Gd5qX/aEZGAkogctCdocz E0WwsnC8dDQjICHZ+paVChdHAPXdpHIw+OatLZe6tQIDGbbDpMz9L9HBh9Kclj4= =or2X -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- Janet(UK) is a trading name of Jisc Collections and Janet Limited, a not-for-profit company which is registered in England under No. 2881024 and whose Registered Office is at Lumen House, Library Avenue, Harwell Oxford, Didcot, Oxfordshire. OX11 0SG. VAT No. 614944238
James Davis wrote:
On 15/07/2014 10:56, Angel Fernandez Pineda wrote: [...] You're right, it doesn't oblige anyone to actually do anything -
Actually, this was one of my worries, when the abuse-c stuff was designed, that having this (mandatory) attribute would send the (confusing) message to the "user", that there's an obligation to react (and respond) to each and every piece of incoming mail. Even more worrying, that the NCC would be seen as "responsible" to manage those things. Alas, this is definitely outside the scope of the NCC's responsibilities, just as it is outside the NCC's responsibility to assure, that every IP address that is listed in the registry has to be accessible, with each type of packets, from every other endpoint on the Internet. Just as there are filters out there, for packets, there are lots of filters and policies around, what to do with (different types, from different sources of) incoming mail. Just as an explanation and not as supporting (perceived) (C) violations. Regards, hth, Wilfried.
agree, for years ripe community tried to explain to rest of the world ripe Ncc is not the governor of the internet, let's not make this job more difficult. This transmission is intended solely for the addressee(s) shown above. It may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. Any review, dissemination or use of this transmission or its contents by persons other than the intended addressee(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify this office immediately and e-mail the original at the sender's address above by replying to this message and including the text of the transmission received.
On 2014年7月15日, at 下午8:07, Wilfried Woeber <Woeber@CC.UniVie.ac.at> wrote:
James Davis wrote:
On 15/07/2014 10:56, Angel Fernandez Pineda wrote: [...] You're right, it doesn't oblige anyone to actually do anything -
Actually, this was one of my worries, when the abuse-c stuff was designed, that having this (mandatory) attribute would send the (confusing) message to the "user", that there's an obligation to react (and respond) to each and every piece of incoming mail.
Even more worrying, that the NCC would be seen as "responsible" to manage those things.
Alas, this is definitely outside the scope of the NCC's responsibilities, just as it is outside the NCC's responsibility to assure, that every IP address that is listed in the registry has to be accessible, with each type of packets, from every other endpoint on the Internet.
Just as there are filters out there, for packets, there are lots of filters and policies around, what to do with (different types, from different sources of) incoming mail.
Just as an explanation and not as supporting (perceived) (C) violations.
Regards, hth, Wilfried.
Hi all, thanks James, thanks Lu for your comments, but I can't be agree with you. If the goal of the RIPE abuse information is just to exist and not to compromise the owner to do something, it sounds a little bit unuseful. Or is there any other goal that I can't see? Is RIPE "responsible" to manage those things? Yes, from my point, because it is doing it now. RIPE's inaction in front of abuse situations is a way to manage or govern internet. It is a RIPE decision. As well as RIPE can create policies that undertake the LIRs in front of abuse situations, not to do it is an internet govern decision. At least from my point of view. James, you talked about filters: IP filters, email filters, ... You are right, it is true. As it is true that IP blacklist due to spam are a problem because it is difficult to recover the IPs when the problem is solved or there is a use change. In this way, I'm afraid that we will see a worse situation with regional bloked IP addresses. The courts can force ISPs to block certain IP addresses at the entrances to their countries, and in fact is being done. It is difficult to achieve because it requires much effort, but it is even more difficult to undo once it is ordered, because it must be again an order of a court. The future scenario could be more and more IP ranges blocked in some countries and not in others. I don't like it. Do you? Regards, Ángel -----Mensaje original----- De: anti-abuse-wg-bounces@ripe.net [mailto:anti-abuse-wg-bounces@ripe.net] En nombre de Lu Enviado el: martes, 15 de julio de 2014 14:11 Para: Woeber@CC.UniVie.ac.at CC: James Davis; anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net Asunto: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Abuse contact information sense agree, for years ripe community tried to explain to rest of the world ripe Ncc is not the governor of the internet, let's not make this job more difficult. This transmission is intended solely for the addressee(s) shown above. It may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. Any review, dissemination or use of this transmission or its contents by persons other than the intended addressee(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify this office immediately and e-mail the original at the sender's address above by replying to this message and including the text of the transmission received.
On 2014年7月15日, at 下午8:07, Wilfried Woeber <Woeber@CC.UniVie.ac.at> wrote:
James Davis wrote:
On 15/07/2014 10:56, Angel Fernandez Pineda wrote: [...] You're right, it doesn't oblige anyone to actually do anything -
Actually, this was one of my worries, when the abuse-c stuff was designed, that having this (mandatory) attribute would send the (confusing) message to the "user", that there's an obligation to react (and respond) to each and every piece of incoming mail.
Even more worrying, that the NCC would be seen as "responsible" to manage those things.
Alas, this is definitely outside the scope of the NCC's responsibilities, just as it is outside the NCC's responsibility to assure, that every IP address that is listed in the registry has to be accessible, with each type of packets, from every other endpoint on the Internet.
Just as there are filters out there, for packets, there are lots of filters and policies around, what to do with (different types, from different sources of) incoming mail.
Just as an explanation and not as supporting (perceived) (C) violations.
Regards, hth, Wilfried.
hi ripe ncc is providing an collective database about information, and maintaining it--but not interfering with the content of the database at governor level, we call it book keeper, claiming more rights or responsibility for ripe ncc beyond this, will create much more complicated situation in a internet governance level. On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 1:18 AM, Angel Fernandez Pineda <anfernandez@lavanguardia.es> wrote:
Hi all,
thanks James, thanks Lu for your comments, but I can't be agree with you.
If the goal of the RIPE abuse information is just to exist and not to compromise the owner to do something, it sounds a little bit unuseful. Or is there any other goal that I can't see?
Is RIPE "responsible" to manage those things? Yes, from my point, because it is doing it now. RIPE's inaction in front of abuse situations is a way to manage or govern internet. It is a RIPE decision. As well as RIPE can create policies that undertake the LIRs in front of abuse situations, not to do it is an internet govern decision. At least from my point of view.
James, you talked about filters: IP filters, email filters, ... You are right, it is true. As it is true that IP blacklist due to spam are a problem because it is difficult to recover the IPs when the problem is solved or there is a use change. In this way, I'm afraid that we will see a worse situation with regional bloked IP addresses. The courts can force ISPs to block certain IP addresses at the entrances to their countries, and in fact is being done. It is difficult to achieve because it requires much effort, but it is even more difficult to undo once it is ordered, because it must be again an order of a court.
The future scenario could be more and more IP ranges blocked in some countries and not in others.
I don't like it. Do you?
Regards,
Ángel
-----Mensaje original----- De: anti-abuse-wg-bounces@ripe.net [mailto:anti-abuse-wg-bounces@ripe.net] En nombre de Lu Enviado el: martes, 15 de julio de 2014 14:11 Para: Woeber@CC.UniVie.ac.at CC: James Davis; anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net Asunto: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Abuse contact information sense
agree, for years ripe community tried to explain to rest of the world ripe Ncc is not the governor of the internet, let's not make this job more difficult.
This transmission is intended solely for the addressee(s) shown above. It may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. Any review, dissemination or use of this transmission or its contents by persons other than the intended addressee(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify this office immediately and e-mail the original at the sender's address above by replying to this message and including the text of the transmission received.
On 2014年7月15日, at 下午8:07, Wilfried Woeber <Woeber@CC.UniVie.ac.at> wrote:
James Davis wrote:
On 15/07/2014 10:56, Angel Fernandez Pineda wrote: [...] You're right, it doesn't oblige anyone to actually do anything -
Actually, this was one of my worries, when the abuse-c stuff was designed, that having this (mandatory) attribute would send the (confusing) message to the "user", that there's an obligation to react (and respond) to each and every piece of incoming mail.
Even more worrying, that the NCC would be seen as "responsible" to manage those things.
Alas, this is definitely outside the scope of the NCC's responsibilities, just as it is outside the NCC's responsibility to assure, that every IP address that is listed in the registry has to be accessible, with each type of packets, from every other endpoint on the Internet.
Just as there are filters out there, for packets, there are lots of filters and policies around, what to do with (different types, from different sources of) incoming mail.
Just as an explanation and not as supporting (perceived) (C) violations.
Regards, hth, Wilfried.
-- -- Kind regards. Lu
Angel, Others have responded to you, but I wanted to add a point or two. Everything the RIPE NCC does is informed by policy made by the community. The creation of the abuse-c was due to one such policy, 2011-06. That policy explicitly did not add anything around mandatory responses, in no small part because it was felt to be just one step and if an attempt was made to get everything in one go, nothing would be got. There are "natural" next steps around data verification (does the abuse-c actually exist) and, potentially, mandatory responses, but my guess would be at least the second of these would face significant resistance from parts of the community. I could be wrong, of course, but that's what my gut is telling me. Without such a policy the NCC have no mandate from the RIPE Community to force LIRs to do anything. Does that make sense? Brian Co-Chair, RIPE AA WG Angel Fernandez Pineda wrote the following on 15/07/2014 18:18:
Hi all,
thanks James, thanks Lu for your comments, but I can't be agree with you.
If the goal of the RIPE abuse information is just to exist and not to compromise the owner to do something, it sounds a little bit unuseful. Or is there any other goal that I can't see?
Is RIPE "responsible" to manage those things? Yes, from my point, because it is doing it now. RIPE's inaction in front of abuse situations is a way to manage or govern internet. It is a RIPE decision. As well as RIPE can create policies that undertake the LIRs in front of abuse situations, not to do it is an internet govern decision. At least from my point of view.
James, you talked about filters: IP filters, email filters, ... You are right, it is true. As it is true that IP blacklist due to spam are a problem because it is difficult to recover the IPs when the problem is solved or there is a use change. In this way, I'm afraid that we will see a worse situation with regional bloked IP addresses. The courts can force ISPs to block certain IP addresses at the entrances to their countries, and in fact is being done. It is difficult to achieve because it requires much effort, but it is even more difficult to undo once it is ordered, because it must be again an order of a court.
The future scenario could be more and more IP ranges blocked in some countries and not in others.
I don't like it. Do you?
Regards,
Ángel
-----Mensaje original----- De: anti-abuse-wg-bounces@ripe.net [mailto:anti-abuse-wg-bounces@ripe.net] En nombre de Lu Enviado el: martes, 15 de julio de 2014 14:11 Para: Woeber@CC.UniVie.ac.at CC: James Davis; anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net Asunto: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Abuse contact information sense
agree, for years ripe community tried to explain to rest of the world ripe Ncc is not the governor of the internet, let's not make this job more difficult.
This transmission is intended solely for the addressee(s) shown above. It may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. Any review, dissemination or use of this transmission or its contents by persons other than the intended addressee(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify this office immediately and e-mail the original at the sender's address above by replying to this message and including the text of the transmission received.
On 2014年7月15日, at 下午8:07, Wilfried Woeber <Woeber@CC.UniVie.ac.at> wrote:
James Davis wrote:
On 15/07/2014 10:56, Angel Fernandez Pineda wrote: [...] You're right, it doesn't oblige anyone to actually do anything -
Actually, this was one of my worries, when the abuse-c stuff was designed, that having this (mandatory) attribute would send the (confusing) message to the "user", that there's an obligation to react (and respond) to each and every piece of incoming mail.
Even more worrying, that the NCC would be seen as "responsible" to manage those things.
Alas, this is definitely outside the scope of the NCC's responsibilities, just as it is outside the NCC's responsibility to assure, that every IP address that is listed in the registry has to be accessible, with each type of packets, from every other endpoint on the Internet.
Just as there are filters out there, for packets, there are lots of filters and policies around, what to do with (different types, from different sources of) incoming mail.
Just as an explanation and not as supporting (perceived) (C) violations.
Regards, hth, Wilfried.
Hi Brian, thank you for your response. I understand what you are telling me. I understand the steps RIPE has done in abuse control. I understand that in the current policies framework RIPE has not mandate to do something. I understand that RIPE community can be resistent to any changes in this way... but I can't understand why things can't change. Do you think it would be an issue to the vast majority of LIR to have a deal with RIPE about copyright? Regards, Ángel -----Mensaje original----- De: anti-abuse-wg-bounces@ripe.net [mailto:anti-abuse-wg-bounces@ripe.net] En nombre de Brian Nisbet Enviado el: miércoles, 16 de julio de 2014 17:37 Para: anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net Asunto: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Abuse contact information sense Angel, Others have responded to you, but I wanted to add a point or two. Everything the RIPE NCC does is informed by policy made by the community. The creation of the abuse-c was due to one such policy, 2011-06. That policy explicitly did not add anything around mandatory responses, in no small part because it was felt to be just one step and if an attempt was made to get everything in one go, nothing would be got. There are "natural" next steps around data verification (does the abuse-c actually exist) and, potentially, mandatory responses, but my guess would be at least the second of these would face significant resistance from parts of the community. I could be wrong, of course, but that's what my gut is telling me. Without such a policy the NCC have no mandate from the RIPE Community to force LIRs to do anything. Does that make sense? Brian Co-Chair, RIPE AA WG Angel Fernandez Pineda wrote the following on 15/07/2014 18:18:
Hi all,
thanks James, thanks Lu for your comments, but I can't be agree with you.
If the goal of the RIPE abuse information is just to exist and not to compromise the owner to do something, it sounds a little bit unuseful. Or is there any other goal that I can't see?
Is RIPE "responsible" to manage those things? Yes, from my point, because it is doing it now. RIPE's inaction in front of abuse situations is a way to manage or govern internet. It is a RIPE decision. As well as RIPE can create policies that undertake the LIRs in front of abuse situations, not to do it is an internet govern decision. At least from my point of view.
James, you talked about filters: IP filters, email filters, ... You are right, it is true. As it is true that IP blacklist due to spam are a problem because it is difficult to recover the IPs when the problem is solved or there is a use change. In this way, I'm afraid that we will see a worse situation with regional bloked IP addresses. The courts can force ISPs to block certain IP addresses at the entrances to their countries, and in fact is being done. It is difficult to achieve because it requires much effort, but it is even more difficult to undo once it is ordered, because it must be again an order of a court.
The future scenario could be more and more IP ranges blocked in some countries and not in others.
I don't like it. Do you?
Regards,
Ángel
-----Mensaje original----- De: anti-abuse-wg-bounces@ripe.net [mailto:anti-abuse-wg-bounces@ripe.net] En nombre de Lu Enviado el: martes, 15 de julio de 2014 14:11 Para: Woeber@CC.UniVie.ac.at CC: James Davis; anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net Asunto: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Abuse contact information sense
agree, for years ripe community tried to explain to rest of the world ripe Ncc is not the governor of the internet, let's not make this job more difficult.
This transmission is intended solely for the addressee(s) shown above. It may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. Any review, dissemination or use of this transmission or its contents by persons other than the intended addressee(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify this office immediately and e-mail the original at the sender's address above by replying to this message and including the text of the transmission received.
On 2014年7月15日, at 下午8:07, Wilfried Woeber <Woeber@CC.UniVie.ac.at> wrote:
James Davis wrote:
On 15/07/2014 10:56, Angel Fernandez Pineda wrote: [...] You're right, it doesn't oblige anyone to actually do anything -
Actually, this was one of my worries, when the abuse-c stuff was designed, that having this (mandatory) attribute would send the (confusing) message to the "user", that there's an obligation to react (and respond) to each and every piece of incoming mail.
Even more worrying, that the NCC would be seen as "responsible" to manage those things.
Alas, this is definitely outside the scope of the NCC's responsibilities, just as it is outside the NCC's responsibility to assure, that every IP address that is listed in the registry has to be accessible, with each type of packets, from every other endpoint on the Internet.
Just as there are filters out there, for packets, there are lots of filters and policies around, what to do with (different types, from different sources of) incoming mail.
Just as an explanation and not as supporting (perceived) (C) violations.
Regards, hth, Wilfried.
16 Jul 2014 kl. 18:29 skrev Angel Fernandez Pineda <anfernandez@lavanguardia.es>:
Do you think it would be an issue to the vast majority of LIR to have a deal with RIPE about copyright?
It would cost all of us multiple LIR-membership fees if we wanted RIPE to be our personal infringement lawyer in such matters. Why can't you just pay a real lawyer instead if the police won’t help you ? Cheers,
Because I have to hire a lawyer and bring a lawsuit in each country where the portal moves. It is the result of the current system, to defend my rights cost a fortune and never finish because the offender may always move his site for a few dollars and a few hours of effort. Ángel -----Mensaje original----- De: anti-abuse-wg-bounces@ripe.net [mailto:anti-abuse-wg-bounces@ripe.net] En nombre de Jørgen Hovland Enviado el: miércoles, 16 de julio de 2014 19:12 Para: anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net Asunto: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Abuse contact information sense 16 Jul 2014 kl. 18:29 skrev Angel Fernandez Pineda <anfernandez@lavanguardia.es>:
Do you think it would be an issue to the vast majority of LIR to have a deal with RIPE about copyright?
It would cost all of us multiple LIR-membership fees if we wanted RIPE to be our personal infringement lawyer in such matters. Why can't you just pay a real lawyer instead if the police won't help you ? Cheers,
16 Jul 2014 kl. 19:27 skrev Angel Fernandez Pineda <anfernandez@lavanguardia.es>:
Because I have to hire a lawyer and bring a lawsuit in each country where the portal moves.
Why aren’t you filing a complaint against the company/person owner of the portal ?
It is the result of the current system, to defend my rights cost a fortune and never finish because the offender may always move his site for a few dollars and a few hours of effort.
As I see it, the only reason for contacting/suing the hosting provider is to get/verify correct contact information of the portal owner. Complaining to the hosting provider for other reasons would be avoiding the real problem.
It is commonly used by such sites hide their identity behind names of fictitious companies. Here is ICANN who says his mission is not to verify that the company that has registered the domain exists. They say that is enough if the whois file is not empty. The host company can do something, do it in USA, but there are always hosting companies that do not, such as piratesIP, the Swedish company that uses SAT NET services, which is RIPE LIR. Ángel ________________________________________ De: anti-abuse-wg-bounces@ripe.net [anti-abuse-wg-bounces@ripe.net] en nombre de Jørgen Hovland [jorgen@hovland.cx] Enviado el: miércoles, 16 de julio de 2014 20:26 Para: anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net Asunto: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Abuse contact information sense 16 Jul 2014 kl. 19:27 skrev Angel Fernandez Pineda <anfernandez@lavanguardia.es>:
Because I have to hire a lawyer and bring a lawsuit in each country where the portal moves.
Why aren’t you filing a complaint against the company/person owner of the portal ?
It is the result of the current system, to defend my rights cost a fortune and never finish because the offender may always move his site for a few dollars and a few hours of effort.
As I see it, the only reason for contacting/suing the hosting provider is to get/verify correct contact information of the portal owner. Complaining to the hosting provider for other reasons would be avoiding the real problem.
Angel If the domain name whois data is bogus then you can file a whois inaccuracy complaint: https://forms.icann.org/en/resources/compliance/complaints/whois/inaccuracy-... The ICANN whois policy goes a lot further than requiring the records not to be empty. Regards Michele -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting & Colocation, Domains http://www.blacknight.co/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://www.technology.ie Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845
Hi there
If it is right, I would like to know what the aim of the abuse contact information is. Is it merely a formal question?
As the person who came up with the abuse-c proposal in the first I’m happy to explain. Abuse-C does not imply anything for an enduser. Admin-C and Tech-C contacts don’t do that either. The idea of abuse-c is, that existing compliance teams and abuse departments are able to make their contact information public. There are nowadays a lot of these teams out there and the lack of standardized contact information made it hard for those teams to get all the information that is available, because it was just to complicated for external parties to find the right contact in a variety of options. Your example with copyright infringement is in my experience a special case. I work professionally with several abuse departments, because we help them to get their abuse handling processes automated and make it easier to solve their customers problems. But copyright infringements are a special case, because even ISPs which do a very good job at handling all the technical attacks like, login-attacks and spam and so on do not want to act upon copyright infringements. This is in several cases internal company policy. No clue for whatever reason, but it is the case. This said I agree that there will always be people on the internet that do not care about that kind of things, but I also agree that this can not and should not be one of the responsibilities of RIPE NCC to make sure those people are doing their abuse handling. There is such a huge variety of different ways in doing abuse handling, that not receiving an auto responder that tells you they have done something does not mean nothing has happened. Try to see abuse-c as a huge help for people who want to keep their networks clean and as a reminder, that they should do it, if they haven’t even started. Thanks, Tobias — Co-Chair AA-WG
participants (9)
-
Angel Fernandez Pineda -
Brian Nisbet -
James Davis -
Jørgen Hovland -
Lu -
Lu Heng
-
Michele Neylon - Blacknight -
Tobias Knecht -
Wilfried Woeber