-----Original Message----- From: ncc-services-wg <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Marcolla, Sara Veronica Sent: 10. lokakuuta 2018 15:29 To: 'Jim Reid' <[email protected]>; 'RIPE NCC Services WG' <[email protected]> Subject: [ncc-services-wg] @EXT: RE: 2018-05 New Policy Proposal (Publication of Legal Address of Internet Number Resource Holder)
Hi Jim, The current postal address information in the RIPE Database is in most cases the location where network engineers are based. --Exactly, that is what the ripe database was made for, technical info on IP numbers, AS numbers, routing etc. Not on tax, not on who owns the company, not who is responsible, that info is in the chambers of commerce's database. It does not make sense to have double bookkeeping, including fields with info already provided by other instances. All other "nice to know" info should be kept out of the ripe database. Rgds, Ray.(private hat) This proposal fixes an issue where, for multiple reasons such as tax, costs or regulations, a company might be legally registered at one location while its engineers are in another (or even in a different country). Having a registration number in the RIPE DB would allow to create the link to the location of the jurisdiction of the resource holder. I can think it could simplify the job of everyone: in case of a company with multiple locations, legal notices and the like won't clog the mail of a network engineer located in country A but would find their way to the legal representative of the company (located in country B and for which the rules and regulations of such country are valid). Kind regards, Sara -----Original Message----- From: Jim Reid [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 10 October 2018 13:28 To: Marcolla, Sara Veronica Cc: RIPE NCC Services WG Subject: Re: [ncc-services-wg] @EXT: RE: 2018-05 New Policy Proposal (Publication of Legal Address of Internet Number Resource Holder) On 10 Oct 2018, at 12:21, Marcolla, Sara Veronica <[email protected]> wrote: > > I would like to clarify that the aim of the proposal was never aimed to > publish information for which a warrant is needed. Only data that is publicly > available in national company registries. If those data are already "publicly available in national company registries” why do they also need to be published by the NCC though some whois-type mechanism? What would this proposed scheme do that’s different/better than the current arrangements? ******************* DISCLAIMER : This message is sent in confidence and is only intended for the named recipient. If you receive this message by mistake, you may not use, copy, distribute or forward this message, or any part of its contents or rely upon the information contained in it. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail and delete the relevant e-mails from any computer. This message does not constitute a commitment by Europol unless otherwise indicated. *******************
