Of course there is, but of course there is also a certain level of misuse. It may well be argued that the due diligence process needs work, including from people whose speciality is fraud mitigation, if there is a reluctance to vet beyond a limit. --srs ________________________________ From: Leo Vegoda <leo@vegoda.org> Sent: Monday, 03 August 2026 21:57:03 To: Suresh Ramasubramanian <ops.lists@gmail.com> Cc: Jeroen Massar <jeroen@massar.ch>; Serge Droz <serge.droz@first.org>; denis walker <ripedenis@gmail.com>; security-wg@ripe.net <security-wg@ripe.net>; Gert Doering <gert@space.net> Subject: Re: [Security-wg] Abuse mailboxes are increasingly no longer monitored and are being replaced by (bad) forms Suresh, On 3 Aug 2026, at 16:24, Suresh Ramasubramanian <ops.lists@gmail.com> wrote: Banks, corporations, corner grocery stores, the guy walking down a street who gets approached for a loan from someone who claims his wallet was stolen and he needs a few euros for a meal and petrol to get home .. everyone is a fortune teller of sorts, and some of them invest quite a lot in fraud / trust and safety teams, AIML and so on. Why should RIPE NCC be any different? The key difference is that the RIPE NCC is a natural monopoly. They are similar to a utility provider. They have a published due diligence process with steps before and after getting resources. They have training courses for those that want them. What they can’t do is pretend that they are the police or a court. Regards, Leo