In message <20151104184211.gm47...@cilantro.c4inet.net>, "Sascha Luck [ml]" <a...@c4inet.net> wrote:
>A few people or companies who act in bad faith do not change this >fact and there is no reason to put the entire membership under >general suspicion and waste its time and fees with elaborate data >collection / verification schemes. > >In the absence of any hard evidence to the contrary (beyond one >or two suspicious cases) *that* is the basis on which this >discussion should be maintained. It has been well more than just one or two cases, and I suspect that you know that. Only one or two GLARING cases per month perhaps, but over time it has added up. >Besides, even business data is somewhat sensitive. Where else >outside the LIR/RIR world do businesses have to maintain all >information about all of their business relationships in a public >database? I, for one, was not aware that RIPE (or RIPE NCC) required businesses to "maintain ALL information about ALL of their business relationships in a public database". If you could elaborate, I feel sure that it would be illuminating, for me at least. >... All the mntner object does is >grant access to change a ripedb object. It says nothing about who >operates a resource or what they are doing with it. The above two sentences are simply and demonstratably false. I have the evidence to prove both statements false. Unfortunately, I am not at liberty to share that evidence just yet. Regards, rfg
