Hi, I’m out of office till 22 August. Any RIPE Labs related queries can be sent to [email protected] and one of my colleagues will get back to you.
Cheers, Alun On 4 Aug 2022, at 22:49, William Sylvester via db-wg <[email protected]> wrote: > Dear Database Working Group Members, > > The four-week discussion phase for > the policy proposal "2022-01 Personal data in the RIPE Database" ended on 15 > July. In agreement with the proposer, we have decided tomove the proposal > into the Review Phase but postponed its start to the end of August. This was > done keeping in mind that the upcoming vacation period might prevent > participation in the discussion and the timely publication of the RIPE NCC > Impact Analysis. > > Please note that the RIPE Database WG Co-Chair Denis Walker is the author > of this policy proposal, hence he is not taking part in the decisions > regarding consensus. > > The RIPE NCC Policy Officer will announce the start > of the Review phase together with the publication of the policy draft and > impact analysis. > > For reference, here’s a short summary of the discussion > so far: > > Ronald Guilmette posted many messages strongly opposing the > proposal, advocating instead for the accurate verification of WHOIS data and > for not publishing personal data for privacy reasons only in special > legitimate cases. > His main points of disagreement were: > a) The > transparency of the database would suffer, affecting LEAs’ and researchers’ > work. > b) The postal address is managed solely by the resource holder and > not by the RIPE NCC. > c) The postal address can already be concealed > using, e.g., a PO box. > d) Only a minority in the community is asking for > the postal address not to be published, which doesn’t justify the effort and > cost of implementation. > e) More contact details might fall under the > same new proposed rule in the future. > f) Accepting the proposal would > change the historical practice of the RIPE Database. > g) There is no > legal basis for the proposed changes. > > The proposer addressed the > concerns above as follows: > a) The transparency achieved is questionable > if it's based on unverified data. > b) End Users are not always aware that > their address has been entered in the RIPE Database by the LIR. > c) > Addresses like those of PO boxes do not help LEAs orresearchers. > d) > Implementation could be supported using the existing ARCs. > e) There is > no mention of further changes in the proposal. > f) Historical practice > should not be treated as a requirement. > g) Legal aspects should be > further clarified by the RIPE NCC legal team. > > Niels Bakker supported the > proposal as it would allow the RIPE NCC to offer a way to prevent LIRs from > entering End Users’ personal data in the RIPE Database. > > Some ideas for > modifying the proposal were posted: > - Ronald Guilmette suggested to address > the verification of contact details entered in the RIPE Database with a > separate proposal that he would support, provided that the implementation > challenges, costs, and consequences for non-compliance would be clarified. > This would split the existing proposal in two: VERIFICATION and REDACTION. > > > - Sylvain Baya, contributed to the discussion and also postedlinks to RIPE > Labs articles published in the past about the proposal’s topics. He supported > Ronald’s suggestion of allowing the RIPE NCC to accept the requests of > exemption from publication of the Personally Identifiable Information (PII) > made by natural persons who need Internet resources and can legally > demonstrate their privacy requirement. Sylvain also suggested splitting the > subject into a set of proposals: one about the general principles for > processing data within the RIPE Database, one about *insertion* of PII within > the RIPE Database, one about the *query* of the RIPE Database and one for > handling the current PII present into the RIPE Database. > > - Leo Vegoda > suggested clearly separating the sections defining a principle from those > defining its implementation. > > - Cynthia Revström supported the proposal > and suggested rewording the proposal clarifying that entering the full home > address is never justified and that the default should be no address at all > for individuals. The assumption should be that any address an individual is > operating from is a home address unless the individual themselves clearly say > that it is not. > > Please let me know if you have any questions. > > Kind > regards, > > > William > db-wg Co-Chair > -- > > 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
-- 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
