In message
<CAKvLzuG3=02CKO3mHywUvLX1MKEOM=hofgrroku8uoxsjlk...@mail.gmail.com>,
denis walker <[email protected]> wrote:
>True...historical versions of these objects are not available in any
>form for privacy and security reasons.
Ok, so, two questions:
1) Is that based on community policy, or on internal RIPE NCC policy?
2) What are these "privacy and security reasons", exactly?
>Personally I don't think MNTNER objects should be visible at all to
>the public. I don't know of any other service on the internet where
>details of how you secure your data are open to the public.
As a privately held corporate entity, RIPE is certainly free to hide
as much of this data as it wants. Even non-profit entities are not
obliged to make all of their internal documents public.
In fact, I personally am not aware of any -legal- requirement for RIPE
to publish any WHOIS data *at all*. And it could obviously be argued
that publishing absolutely -zero- WHOIS data to the public at large
would be maximally consistant with the goals of "privacy and security".
That *is* the logical endpoint of the value system that places "privacy
and security" above all other considerations.
Let's cut to the chase here. I'll start the ball rolling, and Denis can
support or not support the following propoal as he sees fit...
Be it proposed that starting from January 1, 2021, public access
to the RIPE WHOIS data base shall be terminated, and after that
date only RIPE NCC staff members shall have access to any information
contained within the RIPE data base.
Alternatively, starting from January 1, 2021, public access to the
RIPE WHOIS data base shall be terminated, but the data will still
be available, with all names of companies and individuals being
redacted, only to dues-paying RIPE members.
The above proposals are maximally consistant with both GDPR and also with
the twin overriding goals of privacy and security.
Can I get a second for my proposal?
Regards,
rfg
