Hello Daniel, On 30.06.00 12:05 Daniel Roesen <noc@entire-systems.com> wrote:
Dear Sabine,
On Fri, Jun 30, 2000 at 10:39:51AM +0200, Sabine Dolderer/Denic wrote:
speaking for DENIC ;-). I will try to comment about the reasons why we have (or even must) done the migration.
Please explain why you remove the well-working maintainer scheme.
We don't remove the maintainer scheme. What we have done is to protect every Person which hasn't a maintainer with our maintainer to prevent people from deleting unreferenced objects. As these updates (~100.000) was generated, a lot of people started to recognize that there was a problem and sends updates with their maintainer. If you understand the RIPE queueing model you will know that small updates are served faster from RIPE than the bigger ones to keep chances fair. Therefore people saw that we try to put our maintainer to their one day earlier updated persons. They don't see that these requests are send one week earlier not knowing about the maintainer. As these updates were maid accidentally this was corrected later. BtW. If somebody wants to change a DENIC-P maintainer whith his own one. This can be done either by the DENIC member he cooperated with (prefered ;-) ) or by hostmaster@denic.de. BUT: Please keep in mind - we will go completely out of the RIPE-DB there is no need to create own maintainers for the meantime.
There were a lot of pressure from our dataprotection office that due
our business we pubish data (or we urge provider to puplish data of
customers) which is not allowed to publish under German data
to their protection
laws.
It is allowed. Every customer agreed that his information is published in a public database.
I want not to go too deeply in this discussion but believe me that it's not that easy. I still use these argumentation too hoping noone proofs it ;-).
Mainly the existence of the inverse query feature and the publishing of data like phone-, faxnumbers and email addresses was critisized.
Regarding phone, fax and email addresses: with this logic even phone books would be illegal.
If you go for a telefon you are explicitely ask if you want to have additionally to the telefonline a phonebook entry. If you refuse you still get the line.
I am really sorry that due to this discussion I get the feeling that people felt we are doing things without thinking or good reasons or just to make them angry.
Please explain why this was all negotiated behind closed doors (RIPE-Meetings and hostmaster-l ARE closed doors) although it has a wide impact on ALL domain customers and non-DENIC-members (resellers).
RIPE-Meetings are open to everybody. The minutes are published on the web. Why do you beleave they are closed? Maybe you can give me a hint where you think that these sort of discussions should take place. Best Regards Sabine
Best regards,
Daniel Roesen Entire Systems NOC
-- Entire Systems Network Operations Center noc@entire-systems.com Entire Systems GmbH - Ferbachstrasse 12 - 56203 Hoehr-Grenzhausen,
Germany
InterNIC-Handle: ES1238-ORG RIPE-Handle: ESN10-RIPE Tel: +49 2624 9550-55 GnuPG/PGP Key-ID: 0xBF3C40C9 http://www.entire-systems.com/noc/noc-key.asc GnuPG/PGP Fingerprint: 1F3F B675 1A38 D87C EB3C 6090 C6B9 DF48 BF3C 40C9
Sabine Dolderer DENIC eG Wiesenhüttenplatz 26 D-60329 Frankfurt eMail: Sabine.Dolderer@denic.de Fon: +49 69 27235 0 Fax: +49 69 27235 235