* Carlos Friaças via address-policy-wg:
So in order to make it clear for the co-chairs, i do oppose this proposal, on the grounds that the quality of publicly available registration data is likely to decrease if this proposal is approved.
Hi Carlos, This concern has been addressed at length in the previous phases of the policy development process, so for the full answer we will refer you back to those discussions. We will however summarise our position briefly below: We do not believe the registration data will degrade as a result of this proposal. It does in no way encourage or compel LIRs to remove any End User registration data currently found in the database, nor does it stop them from adding more End User registration data in the future. In other words, any LIR that today chooses to publish detailed information about their individual End User assignments is free to continue to do so after this proposal is implemented. Furthermore, there is no reason to expect that the acceptance of this proposal will entice LIRs to replace detailed individual assignments with aggregated assignments en masse. This has not happened with IPv6, where there are currently over twelve times as many ASSIGNED inet6num objects as there are AGGREGATED-BY-LIR objects. Many of those are rife with optional End User details shared voluntarily by the issuing LIRs. We see no reason to believe that LIRs will use AGGREGATED-BY-LIR for IPv4 inetnum objects in a materially different way. Finally, we would like to point out that the proposal explicitly restricts the scope of AGGREGATED-BY-LIR, by stating that «the purpose and the contact details must be consistent throughout the whole assignment». That means that the End User registration data that can be aggregated must be redundant in the first place. Best regards, Jeroen & Tore