Hi Leo On Tue, 31 May 2022 at 21:04, Leo Vegoda <leo@vegoda.org> wrote:
On Thu, May 26, 2022 at 7:30 AM denis walker via db-wg <db-wg@ripe.net> wrote:
Colleagues
Now we move on to the more difficult issue of identifying resource holders.
What do you mean by "resource holders"? Are you referring to someone who has resources allocated or assigned to them directly by the RIPE NCC? Or are you referring to someone whose resources come from an LIR or a level below that?
Both are in scope here. Where the resources are allocated or assigned directly by the RIPE NCC, they reference a mandatory ORGANISATION object that includes a mandatory name and address of the resource holder. For assignments made by LIRs or from sub-allocations, the INET(6)NUM frequently includes a full name and address in the "descr:" attributes.
[...]
Before we can decide on the priorities of privacy vs public interest, we need to understand what that public interest is. How does that public interest fit with the purpose of the database? We need to have this discussion now on the purpose of the database and the public interest, or not, in certain bits of data to decide if the identities of natural persons holding resources can, should, must be hidden from public view.
It would also be good to understand whether this issue relates to a tiny fraction of the registrations. What proportion of registrations and what proportion of the registered number resources are we discussing?
It is almost impossible to write a script to analyse this unless the script can recognise a natural person's name. But for a general idea I flicked through the INETNUM split file on the FTP site and can see a large number of names and addresses of people in the assignment objects. cheers denis proposal author
Thanks,
Leo