Dear address-policy-wg, Gert, On 02/25/2014 07:55 PM, Gert Doering wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 04:03:40PM +0100, Athina Fragkouli wrote:
These options are outlined in the RIPE NCC procedural document ???Due Diligence for the Quality of the RIPE NCC Registration Data???, which is available at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-556
We believe these options cover situations where the natural persons do not want to provide their identification card or passport.
Of course I can't decide anything what the NCC will do or not do, but what I *can* do is put this on the next meeting's APWG agenda, to discuss what requirements for ID validation the community mandates. The NCC should not gratiously exceed the bureaucracy demanded from it.
Please do so. A specific policy may be required to address and define the exact scope of these efforts, since current operational efforts don't seem to be aligned with the community's vision on this matter. This is an issue I've heard many battle stories about, and came across multiple times myself. There is an issue with both the excessive burden placed on individuals, as well as a related issue with pseudo-arbitrary interpretation of certain forms of business registration in some jurisdictions. Several colleagues have encountered some inconsistency in the context of d/b/a (doing business as) registration equivalents and sole proprietorships which in some instances resulted in the resources becoming successfully registered on the d/b/a trade name, while in others the NCC insisted on registering resources on the sole proprietor's own name, or a combination of both. It's outstanding that the RIPE NCC has taken it upon itself to fulfill the community's wishes as set forth in 2007-01 with utmost care and competence, but I have sincere doubts that the people who championed 2007-01 envisioned it as means of turning the NCC into a databank of personal identity documents. -- Respectfully yours, David Monosov