In message <YrLp+ZTtuw+93KR/@jima.tpb.net>, Niels Bakker <[email protected]> wrote:
>The current proposal is also a solution to people entering wrong >information, as denis has clearly stated. Bad information in the >database should be avoided, it's worse than no data. Wow! I confess that I didn'rt read sections 4.0, 5.0, and 6.0 of this proposal (2022-01) till now. This is REALLY astonishing! For a proposal that is initially billed as one for which the need "arises from the need for the RIPE Database to avoid the publishing of unnecessary personal data" this proposal veers quite dramatically and vastly off-course in sections 4.0, 5.0, and 6.0 as it attempts to contstruct a whole new and never-before-seen regime to "verify" *all* WHOIS data... presumably for some value of "verify". Who exactly is going to be tasked with verifying 100% of the names, email addresses, phone numbers, and street addresses already present in the data base and what procedures and criteria will be used for this process? Will NCC be tasked to do this huge amount of work? Is there a a target completion date? 2029 perhaps? Even above and beyond the huge amount of work this proposal would create for -somebody-, the practical challenges all seem to be left as an exercise for the reader. How exactly does one "verify" a voice phone number? How exactly does one "verify" a mailing address? As should already be apparent I am 100% in favor of *all* of this kind of "verification", and indeed, I am very much looking forward to it all being done. But as noted above, there are a LOT of unanswered questions regarding how, when, and by whom this will all be done. And that is -before- we even get into the question of what the plan is to -force- existing members... not even to mention legacy holders... to have accurate WHOIS info if they just don't much feel like it. How can existing members be forced into this if their existing contracts do not already require it? And what will be the penality imposed upon any member who refuses to go along? Expulsion from RIPE and/or termination of their membership?? That is sure to be wildly popular among the membership... NOT! None of these questions are answered by the proposal. Again, all of these questions are left as an exercise for the reader. I don't see how this propsal can fly, given that it fails to even try to answer any of the obvious questions it raises. Furthermore, as I've said, sections 4.0, 5.0, and 6.0 of this proposal are quite clearly entirely unrelated to the goal of *removing* personal data from the data base. So really, what we have here is two entirely unrelated proposals... one for removal of some data and another for the verification of other data... glued together to make them superficially appear to be just a single proposal. I'm frankly not sure that it is even worth further discussion of this proposal until such time as it is broken into two propsals by its author... one for removal of personal data from WHOIS, which I remain adamantly opposed to, and a separate one for verification of WHOIS data, which I vigorously support. Regards, rfg -- 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
