I honestly don't see how all this back and forth, which is bordering on a monologue, is of any relevance to Anti-Abuse

I don't see the relevance of any of your posts other than to (1) promote an agenda of driving people away and (2) to post all that spam in your signature. Thank You

On 20 Jan 2012, at 20:57, russ@consumer.net wrote:

RIPE has collected personal information about me that led to them blacklisting my business from accessing the whois database. When i ask for disclosure of the information they collected about me the answer I received from RIPE NCC is:

"Unfortunately we cannot provide you with such information. It is considered to be confidential information and thus cannot be disclosed to the public."

Who considers it "confidential information" and for what reason? I am asking for information collected about me and not "public" disclosure. I though EU companies had to disclose the personal information they collected about people?

They should release information about you, to you. However, they should not release to you information about other people. For example, if someone had filed a spam report, then RIPE could tell you that that had happened, but they should not release information that allows you to identify the reporter. When considering what to release to you, they should have regard to other information that you might have, or which might be publicly available. So, they certainly should not release the name and address of the reporter. They should also be careful about releasing information like email message-ids, which you might be able to use to identify the reporter.

I guess they figure there is no much a foreigner can do so they are going to disregard these privacy laws?

So much for EU privacy protection!

Thank You

-- Ian Eiloart Postmaster, University of Sussex +44 (0) 1273 87-3148

I noticed this paragraph in the RIPE policy development process. Several people have suggested to submit proposals for issues that are actually related to RIPE NCC "business practices" "RIPE Policies are also separate from RIPE NCC business practices and procedures. Business practices and procedures that the RIPE NCC follows are defined and governed by the RIPE NCC Executive Board and approved by the RIPE NCC membership. If a policy proposal would bring implementation and/or operational problems for the RIPE NCC if accepted, the RIPE NCC Executive Board is tasked to notify the RIPE community accordingly as well as to make necessary suggestions and recommendations about possible changes to the proposal." everything is also supposed to be "transparent" so the legal opinions relating to the EU privacy laws and the WHOIS database are supposed to be released to the community but RIPE NCC refuses to release them. I also note that RIPE says: "All RIPE Meetings and RIPE Working Group mailing lists are open to everyone." That is E V E R Y O N E. Not just large network operators, your anti-abuse buddies that you used to hang out with on NANOG, not people who have been in the ICANN process all their lives, not small groups of people who all think like you. EVERYONE. A certain percentage of people claim they have been abducted aliens. EVERYONE means them too. Thank You

Yes...? You are here on one of these open mailing lists. What are you trying to tell us? Gert Doering -- NetMaster

I am telling you that you do not have a legitimate process to seek community involvement. Since I started posting I have been constantly harassed and told not to post and get off the list. People keep saying my posts are off-topic when, in fact, they are on topic but people just don't agree. One guy even investigated my business and tried to claim my network was not large enough so I apparently am not worthy of posting here. I posted a list of questions but instead of addressing my questions I get ridicule and the co-chairs says my posts are "not welcome." I have seen hundreds of people drop out of ICANN involvement over the years for just this very reason. Those people are interested in driving people away so they can control everything. The lists only exists so they can claim there was some kind of bottom up process when there is not. Thank You

On 26 Jan 2012, at 13:12, russ@consumer.net wrote:

Below is the latest reply from RIPE. They claim they cannot verify that I operate the IP address in question.

What is the IP address?

This sounds like a frivolous/ridiculous response to me. I told them to:

-Check the ARIN whois, -Type the IP address into their browser and send a message to the contact link and I will respond -Check the domain name whois -Check the business registration in the State where my business is located -Verify with the ISP who is renting me the IP's and completed the ARIN registration

Here is RIPE NCC's latest response:

I understand that you are concerned about your privacy and that you would like to know details about the number of queries made by this specific IP address. Unfortunately, we are unable to disclose this information to you. We have no way to verify that you were the user of this address. Please be reassured that access to the RIPE Data base is blocked based on query volume within a specific time-frame and nothing else. I'm sorry we are not able to help you further. -- If you have any questions, please feel free to contact us. Best regards, Customer Services RIPE NCC

Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions ♞ Hosting & Colocation, Brand Protection ICANN Accredited Registrar http://www.blacknight.com/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://blacknight.biz http://mneylon.tel Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 US: 213-233-1612 UK: 0844 484 9361 Locall: 1850 929 929 Facebook: http://fb.me/blacknight Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845

Hi Russ, If you think that the system is flawed (sorry, I don't agree with the delusion that the ppl are fraud) than why not propose a policy to correct the system. Its just a matter of couple of weeks work IFF you are correct. Regards, Aftab A. Siddiqui On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 10:05 PM, russ@consumer.net <russ@consumer.net>wrote:

Another response from RIPE. First they claimed it is confidential. Then they claimed they could send it to me because they couldn't verify I owned the IP address. Now they just say they "cannot" disclose the information without any explanation.

The people running RIPE NCC are frauds. There is no other way to put it.

Thank You

I am sorry but we cannot disclose this information.

...

Best regards,

...

Andrea Di Menna

...

Customer Services RIPE NCC

...

If you think that the system is flawed (sorry, I don't agree with the delusion that the ppl are fraud) than why not propose a policy to correct the system. Its just a matter of couple of weeks work IFF you are correct.

That is because the system is so flawed in its current state that it is a waste of time. I already pointed to the report to the community is so sketchy that the majority of the community do not know what is actually going on and RIPE is actively hiding information (such as the legal opinion) from the community. So I don't agree with the delusion that you have a working, legitimate system. What you have is a small number of people who run things their way and run anyone else "out of town."

If system is there no matter how flawed or bad it is, than it can be changed by all means and the procedure is already given. That is all what I can suggest to sum-up. Regards, Aftab A. Siddiqui.

On 27 Jan 2012, at 13:21, russ@consumer.net wrote:

...

If system is there no matter how flawed or bad it is, than it can be changed by all means and the procedure is already given. That is all what I can suggest to sum-up.

Yes, that is true. You need to start somewhere but I am not the person to do it. I am pointing out these issues publicly and taking all the heat. Several people agree with me but they don't want to say so publicly so maybe this will encourage some of the people local to RIPE to submit some proposals.

You're "taking all the heat", because you are like a bull in a china shop. You've made all sorts of crazy assertions that were not based on facts. You've even gone so far as to make defamatory comments about people on this list and RIPE NCC staff, including myself. If there was a "big conspiracy" you'd have been kicked off the list by now, but you haven't been, because no such conspiracy exists. And you have continually ignored any replies that would have helped you when you didn't like the answers Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions ♞ Hosting & Colocation, Brand Protection ICANN Accredited Registrar http://www.blacknight.com/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://blacknight.biz http://mneylon.tel Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 US: 213-233-1612 UK: 0844 484 9361 Locall: 1850 929 929 Facebook: http://fb.me/blacknight Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 On 27/01/2012 13:36, russ@consumer.net wrote:

Look who is talking! Are you ever going to make a post that has more lines than all the ads in your signature?

I'm not sure if anyone has noticed but this is the *anti* abuse working group. Perhaps we should all take a short break for reflection: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RDjCqjzbvJY 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 Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iF4EAREIAAYFAk8iqVoACgkQjsS2Y6D6yLxd4gEAnrVE4Iunpkt6plVjX8pQOPY7 2ffQBnjgk9IzEUS4J0QA+wftqbVwLCoZxeVQZh+GqifRDBYnpiAwdI2h5TNOKLCt =O6aY -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- JANET(UK) is a trading name of The JNT Association, a company limited by guarantee which is registered in England under No. 2881024 and whose Registered Office is at Lumen House, Library Avenue, Harwell Oxford, Didcot, Oxfordshire. OX11 0SG

If you learnt how to engage with people without simply coming across as an incredibly dumb, ignorant, abrasive and idiotic American, then maybe people would take you a lot more seriously.

Well I have a CISSP to go along with my advanced degrees in physics and computer science. Maybe if I went to your school I would have learnt more. However, I would have thought you would have learnt not to use the race card when you are in an argument. It is not about race or regions of the world as ICANN does the same thing here in the USA.

I'm not sure if anyone has noticed but this is the *anti* abuse

Right. My point is that the people claiming to be "anti-abuse" are actually abusers themselves. If you lie and mislead people that is "abuse" even if the stated goal is "anti-abuse." People involved with anti-abuse often think the rules don't apply to them because they are on some kind of "mission from god" to find the "holy grail." I do have a video that shows what it is like dealing with RIPE NCC over this whois blocking issue: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZvsGdJP3ng Time to stop these RIPE NCC abusers from disrupting the whois system and access to abuse contacts That is the system paid for by USA taxpayers and not the RIPE members who are disrupting it. Thank You

The RIPE NCC is not paid for by the USA taxpayer, and most of the personal data they hold has been collected by RIPE.

RIPE is able to register IP's and collect the fees because of the MOU with IANA which is paid for by the USA taxpayer. RIPE can collect user fees because they entered into the MOU agreement with IANA. Part of that agreement is to provide certain services required by the RIR's which includes the whois data. RIPE collected this data under the MOU agreement and has agreed to make the data available under the MOU agreement. The entire system hinges on the US government contract with IANA. RIPE clearly says the members are responsible for entering their own data into the RIP database so the members voluntarily give up any privacy protection under EU directives when they do that. These issues are all on topic and need to be dealt with before you can start discussing you want to discuss. I don't understand why these issues have not be dealt with before but many want to ignore them and run around changing policies without taking this stuff into account. Thank You

it is difficult to not to correct some of the misconceptions voiced here repeatedly. Apologies to those who already know. So, for the record, here are some facts:

If it is that difficult then why isn't this information on the RIPE web site in a clear fashion and why didn't you respond weeks ago when I first brought this up? The US taxpayer is paying for the US Dept of Commerce to administer this contract. The contact states: "Allocate Internet Numbering Resources - - This function involves overall responsibility for allocated and unallocated IPv4 and IPv6 address space and Autonomous System Number space. It includes the responsibility for delegation of IP address blocks to regional registries for routine allocation, typically through downstream providers, to Internet end-users within the regions served by those registries. This function also includes reservation and direct allocation of space for special purposes, such as multicast addressing, addresses for private networks as described in RFC 1918, and globally specified applications." ... "Secure Data -- The Contractor shall ensure the authentication, integrity, and reliability of the data in performing the IANA requirements, including the data relevant to DNS, root zone file, and IP address allocation." As I understand this IANA is responsible for the authentication, integrity, and reliability of the whois data. Thank You

They don't work for you.

Yes they do. They work for the community and I am part of the community who pays the bills. The attitude you have is typical of ICANNers. They tax and then go tell the people who pay the tax to go jump in the lake when they ask a basic question.

They can't anticipate every question someone might ask.

These are basic questions that relate to the authority to operate which is one of the very. Everyone involved anticipates these questions will be asked. The problem is people like you. For decades you have fostered an approach where only a small of group of people run everything and when people ask basic questions they get responses like you always provide. It seems your main mission is to drive people away. That is why there is a need for someone like me to come on this list. You are the poster child for what is wrong with these ICANN processes. Where is your tag-team buddy (Crispin)? Thank You

By the way, as for facts, you keep asserting that IANA is a separate legal entity and that the US Dept. Commerce has a contract with them. Since it's already been pointed out that these assertions are incorrect -- and the language at IANA doesn't support your model: <http://www.iana.org/about> > perhaps you'd care to point at the legal documents that prove otherwise.

It was already posted by Mr. Pawlik: http://www.icann.org/en/general/iana-contract-14aug06.pdf As you can see IANA is a separate legal entity. If you read you can see that ICANN provides the resources for the IANA function but the actual legal entity on the contract is IANA. The contract could have been directly with the legal entity ICANN. I have asked for an explanation as to why this is but I cannot get an answer from IANA/ICANN or DOC. I assume it was done to try to isolate ICANN from liability but that is just speculation.

I could well be wrong, but I doubt that your strident efforts at bullying those who disagree with you is all that productive.

You started with the ad hominem bullying and I just responded in kind. My methods may not help with my immediate issue but in the long run it is good to ruffle some feathers so maybe the next person who has issues like mine will get more consideration than I got from RIPE NCC. I didn't wake up one day and say I want to join a RIPE list and cause trouble. I was going fine for 13 years and now all of a sudden there is a problem and they cut me off. This is the kind of reaction that you will get when things like that are done. Thank You

Russ, I do not understand why you waste everyone's time by writing such meaningless messages frequently. If anyone is interested in Facts and Records, they can easily search for it, especially about ICANN, http://www.icann.org/en/about/. The Abuse Working group must focus its attention on more fundamental matters than squabbling about such trivial matters that you constantly bring up. Thank you, Reza Farzan ===========

-----Original Message----- From: anti-abuse-wg-bounces@ripe.net [mailto:anti-abuse-wg-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of russ@consumer.net Sent: Saturday, January 28, 2012 5:59 PM To: anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Some Facts for the Record

...

As you can see IANA is a separate legal entity.

I looked again. it actually says the legal entity is "Internet Corporation for Assigned Names" which I don't think even exists as a legal entity so who knows.

This is a good treatise on how outsiders see these 'so-called' community systems like ICANN and RIPE. They come up with all these procedures simply designed to waste people's time so they can drive them away. this guy did extensive documentation of how it works: http://hasbrouck.org/icann/ The people who promote these community systems like RIPE are either delusional or, more likely, they have something to gain (either money, stature, or just the ability to tell others what they can and cannot do). Of course those people would just say there is something wrong with Mr. Hasbrouck as well. As for the current proposal, there is no legal review available to the community and it contradicts the current blocking policy as far as the EU privacy claims so, if the process was legitimate, it should not move forward until the legal review is complete and made available to the public. Since the process is not legitimate I expect that won't happen. Thank You

Hi, Sorry, bad text editing here…

I think this page covers most of your confusion: http://www.iana.org/abuse/answers, especially the section 'Allocation of IP Addresses'. It starts with 'The IANA maintains a high-level registry of IP addresses.', which is the data that IANA is responsible for. No more, no less.

Which should have read: I think this page covers most of your confusion: http://www.iana.org/abuse/answers, especially the section 'Allocation of IP Addresses'. It starts with 'The IANA maintains a high-level registry of IP addresses.', which is the >> kind of << data that IANA is responsible for. No more, no less. I'm not implying that IANA is only responsible for IPv4 :-) Sander

Hi,

...

'The IANA maintains a high-level registry of IP addresses.', which is the >> kind of << data that IANA is responsible for. No more, no less. I'm not implying that IANA is only responsible for IPv4 :-) Sander

Are you saying that IANA is not responsible for the whois data, just for high level data of IP address allocation?

Yes

It seems to me that that is the way it is being done but it also seems to me that the controlling document (the contract between IANA and Us Government) does not say that.

That is between IANA (well, ICANN since IANA is a function of ICANN) and the US Government… If ICANN promised responsibility for something they have no control over, then that is a problem for them. But I leave that to someone from ICANN because I am not involved with either ICANN or the US Government, so I can't speak for them or make statements about contracts they might have signed.

It says the addresses are allocated through downstream providers (the RIRs) but that IANA is still responsible for the data integrity. As I understand it the RIR's are subcontractors and IANA is supposed to make sure the subcontractors handle the registration data properly.

No, that is not how it works.

There is supposed to be a document that IANA produces which are the requirements for the RIR's. I have asked for this document but IANA won't give it to me.

I don't know which document you are talking about, unless you are talking about RFC 2050. It contains guidelines and is a 'representation of the current practice of the IP address registries with respect to address assignment' in 1996.

I suspect this document has the whois requirements for RIRs but since they won't give it to me I can only speculate and I have to go by what is says in the IANA contract .

'Suspect' and 'speculate'. Not very good grounds to build an argument on… Look at section 2.2 of RFC 2050. I think that comes close to what you are talking about.

It says that the USA owns the data and IANA is responsible for "authentication, integrity, and reliability of the data in performing the IANA requirements, including the data relevant to DNS, root zone file, and IP address allocation."

Of course: 'in performing the IANA requirements'. IP address allocation from IANA to the RIRs. That is the IANA requirement.

The whois data is "data relevant to ... IP address allocation." So, according to this, IANA is not supposed to allocate IP addresses to any RIR unless IANA can ensure the "authentication, integrity, and reliability of the data."

No, that is not what it says… Sander

That is between IANA (well, ICANN since IANA is a function of ICANN) and the US Government…

The contract is with IANA (ICANN provides the resources but IANA is a distinct legal entity that entered into the contract). The contract allows IANA to delegate the IP's but they are responsible for the data surrounding the allocation. What it boils down to is that IANA has the ultimate responsibility for the data. When they allocate the IP's to someone else it is still IANA's responsibility for the authentication, integrity, and reliability of the data is still with IANA. I will agree that speculating on what the RIR requirements is not the basis for a stance on an issue. However, neither is "we have always done it this way." I looked at RFC 2050 and I see no issues there. IANA is allowed to delegate things to the RIR's and the RIR's can develop local policies for local issues. However, IANA is still ultimately responsible for the data. If some data responsibility is to transferred to the RIR then it would not be that big a deal to change the contract but the US Government must agree. IANA does not have the authority to transfer this responsibility on their own. I cannot immediately find the reference to IANA requirements for RIRs. I would speculate that there is a whois requirement like all the ICANN requirements for domain registries. That would bolster my argument but my argument does not hinge on that, it hinges on the IANA contract wording. If IANA had the authority to delegate something to someone else the contract would say so. It does say IANA can delegate the IP address space to regional registries but it does not say IANA can transfer the responsibility for the authentication, integrity, and reliability of the data to the RIRs.

PS: You seem to have a top-down view, while this is a bottom-up world.

Yes. I have seen how this "bottom up" and "transparent" system works. How many transparency initiatives has ICANN had now? They seem to have one very few months ever since they started but they all fail. I had signed up for some type of community voting system years ago and what ever happened to that? I remember they harassed one Board member who used to suggest adding TLD's. Of course now that they came up with this big money grab scheme suddenly it is all the rage. I just don't believe or trust any of these ICANN or ICANN-like processes. I think ICANN was set up to tax people and the people paying the taxes have no say whatsoever. Since it is set up as a corporation rather than a government agency it circumvents one of the basic rights of taxpayers which is the access to the information (in the USA it is called the Freedom of Information Act or FOIA). Thank you