Ronald, can you please deny or confirm if you are being paid for your posts ? article writers are being paid by the count of words, and your posts are seems to be usually very tedious, specially when you sometimes add more many words to explain and clarify basic technical terms, when you initially reaching out to a technical audience, like you are trying to make your posts as long as possible.

I would ask you, and I'm sure that many have the same opinion, not to flood the mailing lists with long and tedious posts, write your posts shortly please, please ask your employers to be paid per posts and not per words.

From: db-wg <db-wg-bounces@ripe.net> on behalf of Ronald F. Guilmette via db-wg <db-wg@ripe.net>
Sent: Saturday, January 30, 2021 6:42 AM
To: Database WG <db-wg@ripe.net>
Subject: [db-wg] "Hidden" historical WHOIS records
 
The Co-Chairman's declaration that my prior post was off-topic for this
mailing list... an assertion that I take strong exception to... has at
least had the salutary effect of reminding me of a number of what I
consider to be "open issues" -- issues which ARE quite unambiguously
on-topic for this mailing list, and which I first broached here way back
around December 3rd:

   https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/db-wg/2020-December/006736.html

At that time and ever since I do not believe that I have seen any
resoponse to the clear and pointed questions I posed in the message
linked to above.  I thus am now obliged to restate and reiterate
those still-pending questions.

As part of my effort to clarify my goals, vis a vis historical WHOIS
transparency, back on December 3rd I threw out what I felt would be
a perfectly ludicrous and absurd suggestion, just for retorical
purposes, in order to try to make a point.  I said something along
the lines of "Hey why don't you all just make the entire RIPE WHOIS
data base private rather than public?"

I felt sure that when I did this that at least some of the denizens of
this list... at least the few who might still care about either transparency
or accountability... would immediately recognize the utter absurdity
of my retorical suggestion, and that those folks, at least, would get up
on their hind legs to vigorously protest any such move away from the
longstanding and historical open and public nature of the WHOIS data base
in all five regions.

I was thus shocked and more than a little dismayed to see some of the
folks here on this list taking my suggestion as something other than
the lame joke and retorical device it was intended to be.  Some folks
here, it seems, would be entirely fine with hiding literally *everything*
from the eyes of outside and independent investigators, including but not
limited to me personally -- outside and independent investigators who's
only goals are honesty, fairness, and a lack of thievery and self-dealing
on the part of RIPE "insiders".

I will not mince words.  I find this type of position and this type of
orientation, in favor of secrecy and against transparency, to be nothing
less than shameful.  Who does secrecy and darkness help other than the
criminal element within the RIPE region?

Some of you may still remember the discussion which I engaged in here,
on and around December 3rd.  For those that do not, the above link may be
helpful in refreshing your memories.

At that time the subject at hand was the availability, or lack thereof,
of access to historical RIPE records, in particular (a) access to records
that have since been purged from the data base and also (b) access to the
historical versions of various ostensibly "privileged" record types,
specifically PERSON, ROLE, and MNTNER records.

As noted above, to this day I have never seen an answer to the basic
question that I had asked, back on December 3rd about access to either
or both of these two broad categories of historical data, and more
specifically, who, if anyone, decided or approved, unilaterally or
otherwise, the notion that either of these two broad categories of
historical data should be made unavailable.

Thus, I ask yet again, who made these decisions to hide what was at one
time open and public WHOIS data?

I certainly do not wish to draw any improper or unjustified inference from
the lack of response on this key point, but it quite certainly does seem
to be the case, from where I am sitting, that nobody much wants to talk
about how these decisions were made, let alone who made them.

So, once again:  Who exactly decided that these two categories of historical
WHOIS records should be unavailable?  Was this a decision of the membership
and/or the community?  Were these decision points / policy points debated
openly and fairly, taking into account what may perhaps be multiple divergent
views on the matter?  Or did certain people in positions of power just make
these decisions entirely unilaterally and without ever consulting anyone?

I look forward to some clarity here as regards to how these decisions were
made and who made them.  I hope that others on this list, even if you may
disagree with my personal preference for total openness and transparency
of the data base, will at least join me in hoping that all -decisions-
relating to data base access should at least be made in the clear light
of day, and in an open and transparent manner.


Regards,
rfg


P.S.  I remind everyone that during the discussion back in early December
it was noted that a relevant policy proposal had already been lingering in
a state of suspended animation for some years already.

Perhaps someone can help me out here.  I have been searching for the
reference to the specific (still pending?) policy proposal in question
but I can't seem to find it now.