Hi Leo, Just to make it 100% clear for me: do you mean to say that you support my proposal No. 2? пн, 5 нояб. 2018 г., 23:12 Leo Vegoda <leo.vegoda@icann.org>:

Hi,

Töma Gavrichenkov wrote:

[...]

...

...

When an End User has a network using public address space this _must_ be registered separately with the contact details of the End User. Where the End User is an individual rather than an organisation, the contact information of the service provider may be substituted for the End Users.

[...]

...

All in all, RIPE-708 6.2 is a perfect example of an imperfect policy, too strict and too vague at the same time. Which is bad, because a) some ISPs would just prefer to ignore it, no matter the "must", and would be paying less attention to other "musts" they would encounter in other policy documents, b) those ISPs who would choose to be responsible about RIPE DB usage risk losing customers and wouldn't be able to defend their attitude against the customers, let alone courts, based on the RIPE DB policy.

Over 20 years ago, the ISP at which I worked had a number of customers with home networks using public IP address space. The ISP placed its own contact information in the RIPE Whois Database with a comment that the address space was assigned to an individual customer.

If I remember correctly this was done for two key reasons:

1. RIPE policy does not override the law of the land. 2. There was very little value in placing those customers' contact details in the RIPE Whois Database because they were network users and not network administrators. The ISP's NOC staff had skills, tools, processes, and training and were in a much stronger position to provide meaningful assistance to anyone with a genuine reason to make contact about the administration of one of those customer networks.

As I remember, the RIPE NCC was happy with the rationale back then. While the specific wording of RIPE policy might have changed somewhat in the last 20 years, I don't think the intent has.

The contact details of the End User do not have to mean their personal phone number or e-mail address. And if they do not have the skills, tools, processes, and training to provide meaningful assistance to anyone with a genuine reason to make contact about a specific network, providing a personal phone number or e-mail address is arguably unhelpful.

Kind regards,

Leo Vegoda