Hi Leo On Tue, 31 May 2022 at 21:04, Leo Vegoda <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Thu, May 26, 2022 at 7:30 AM denis walker via db-wg <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Colleagues > > > > Now we move on to the more difficult issue of identifying resource > > holders. > > What do you mean by "resource holders"? Are you referring to someone > who has resources allocated or assigned to them directly by the RIPE > NCC? Or are you referring to someone whose resources come from an LIR > or a level below that?
Both are in scope here. Where the resources are allocated or assigned directly by the RIPE NCC, they reference a mandatory ORGANISATION object that includes a mandatory name and address of the resource holder. For assignments made by LIRs or from sub-allocations, the INET(6)NUM frequently includes a full name and address in the "descr:" attributes. > > [...] > > > Before we can decide on the priorities of privacy vs public interest, > > we need to understand what that public interest is. How does that > > public interest fit with the purpose of the database? We need to have > > this discussion now on the purpose of the database and the public > > interest, or not, in certain bits of data to decide if the identities > > of natural persons holding resources can, should, must be hidden from > > public view. > > It would also be good to understand whether this issue relates to a > tiny fraction of the registrations. What proportion of registrations > and what proportion of the registered number resources are we > discussing? It is almost impossible to write a script to analyse this unless the script can recognise a natural person's name. But for a general idea I flicked through the INETNUM split file on the FTP site and can see a large number of names and addresses of people in the assignment objects. cheers denis proposal author > > Thanks, > > Leo -- To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or change your subscription options, please visit: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/db-wg
