On Tue, 9 Oct 2018, ROBINOT Stephane DCPJ SDLC wrote: (...)
To randy, I would like to say that I don't understand what he pmeans by "whois is useless and should die". As I am new in this group, I might have missed something. Could you explain what you mean ?
regards
cv
Greetings, I'm also curious about if he meant "whois should die, let's get everything onto rdap quickly", or if he means: "whois and all other registration information protocols should die, so that nobody sees anything anymore". :-))) Regards, Carlos
Pour une administration exemplaire, préservons l'environnement. N'imprimons que si nécessaire.
-------- Message original -------- *Sujet: *[INTERNET] ncc-services-wg Digest, Vol 79, Issue 3 *De : *ncc-services-wg-request@ripe.net *Pour : *ncc-services-wg@ripe.net *Date : *09/10/2018 12:00
Send ncc-services-wg mailing list submissions to ncc-services-wg@ripe.net
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/ncc-services-wg or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to ncc-services-wg-request@ripe.net
You can reach the person managing the list at ncc-services-wg-owner@ripe.net
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of ncc-services-wg digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. @EXT: 2018-05 New Policy Proposal (Publication of Legal Address of Internet Number Resource Holder) - updating the proposal? (Marcolla, Sara Veronica) 2. Re: @EXT: 2018-05 New Policy Proposal (Publication of Legal Address of Internet Number Resource Holder) - updating the proposal? (Randy Bush) 3. Re: @EXT: 2018-05 New Policy Proposal (Publication of Legal Address of Internet Number Resource Holder) - updating the proposal? (Carlos Fria?as) 4. @EXT: RE: 2018-05 New Policy Proposal (Publication of Legal Address of Internet Number Resource Holder) - updating the proposal? (Marcolla, Sara Veronica) 5. Re: @EXT: 2018-05 New Policy Proposal (Publication of Legal Address of Internet Number Resource Holder) - updating the proposal? (Nik Soggia)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1 Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2018 15:46:47 +0000 From: "Marcolla, Sara Veronica" <Sara.Marcolla@europol.europa.eu> To: "'ncc-services-wg@ripe.net'" <ncc-services-wg@ripe.net> Subject: [ncc-services-wg] @EXT: 2018-05 New Policy Proposal (Publication of Legal Address of Internet Number Resource Holder) - updating the proposal? Message-ID: <ED32B03A4D1A7448B86844EED9D4845D4EA5BF82@COIMBRA.europol.eu.int> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Hi everyone,
All the comments exchanged in the list made me thinking a lot about the wording of this proposal. I have noticed that the lively discussion around the policy is bringing a lot of attention on the dichotomy between the individual (which I agree completely, should be protected in their fundamental rights, with provisions such as the GDPR and others), and the company/corporation. It seems to me so far that many of us would indeed support the idea of having the legal address published of companies, but having concerns about personal data. The aim of this proposal is indeed to focus on companies, not individuals, and even the smallest company has to be registered as such (if not for other reasons, for tax reasons). Individuals will be anyways protected by a hierarchically higher set of rules: the fundamental rights, such as those championed by GDPR for example.
At this point I am asking whether you support a proposal, the clarifies that only the legal address of companies will be published, and that states clearly that individuals information will be protected? After all, the reasoning here is that if a resource holder is registered with a national company registry, they have a legal address which can be published. This legal address is usually publicly available anyhow and can be then validated by the RIPE NCC.
Looking forward to hear the feedback to this idea for an amendment to the proposal.
Sara *******************
DISCLAIMER : This message is sent in confidence and is only intended for the named recipient. If you receive this message by mistake, you may not use, copy, distribute or forward this message, or any part of its contents or rely upon the information contained in it. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail and delete the relevant e-mails from any computer. This message does not constitute a commitment by Europol unless otherwise indicated.
*******************
------------------------------
Message: 2 Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2018 09:30:39 -0700 From: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> To: "Marcolla, Sara Veronica" <Sara.Marcolla@europol.europa.eu> Cc: "'ncc-services-wg@ripe.net'" <ncc-services-wg@ripe.net> Subject: Re: [ncc-services-wg] @EXT: 2018-05 New Policy Proposal (Publication of Legal Address of Internet Number Resource Holder) - updating the proposal? Message-ID: <m2y3b8e6z4.wl-randy@psg.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
At this point I am asking whether you support a proposal, the clarifies that only the legal address of companies will be published not particularly
the contract is between the ncc and the registrant; not the community and the registrant.
whois (not the irr, which is confuddled with it in the ripe registry) is useless and should die.
randy
------------------------------
Message: 3 Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2018 22:50:25 +0100 (WEST) From: Carlos Fria?as <cfriacas@fccn.pt> To: "Marcolla, Sara Veronica" <Sara.Marcolla@europol.europa.eu> Cc: "'ncc-services-wg@ripe.net'" <ncc-services-wg@ripe.net> Subject: Re: [ncc-services-wg] @EXT: 2018-05 New Policy Proposal (Publication of Legal Address of Internet Number Resource Holder) - updating the proposal? Message-ID: <alpine.LRH.2.21.1810082238040.25543@gauntlet.corp.fccn.pt> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
On Mon, 8 Oct 2018, Marcolla, Sara Veronica wrote:
Hi everyone, Greetings,
All the comments exchanged in the list made me thinking a lot about the wording of this proposal. I have noticed that the lively discussion around the policy is bringing a lot of attention on the dichotomy between the individual (which I agree completely, should be protected in their fundamental rights, with provisions such as the GDPR and others), and the company/corporation. It seems to me so far that many of us would indeed support the idea of having the legal address published of companies, but having concerns about personal data. The aim of this proposal is indeed to focus on companies, not individuals, and even the smallest company has to be registered as such (if not for other reasons, for tax reasons). Individuals will be anyways protected by a hierarchically higher set of rules: the fundamental rights, such as those championed by GDPR for example. Well, LIR addresses are already published on the RIPE NCC's website. LIR's customers addresses may not be part of whois.ripe.net... well... i know some LIRs tend to protect their customers identity, to prevent competitors to approach them with better contractual conditions (this is not the case of the LIR i work for, which is a NREN)
At this point I am asking whether you support a proposal, the clarifies that only the legal address of companies will be published, and that states clearly that individuals information will be protected? After all, the reasoning here is that if a resource holder is registered with a national company registry, they have a legal address which can be published. This legal address is usually publicly available anyhow and can be then validated by the RIPE NCC. I see added value in "validation by the RIPE NCC", despite the natural cost this will bring...
However, i wonder what should be the procedure if RIPE NCC finds that company X registers a new company Y in a different country/economy resorting to a "virtual office" address.
Looking forward to hear the feedback to this idea for an amendment to the proposal. Good luck!
Best Regards, Carlos
Sara *******************
DISCLAIMER : This message is sent in confidence and is only intended for the named recipient. If you receive this message by mistake, you may not use, copy, distribute or forward this message, or any part of its contents or rely upon the information contained in it. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail and delete the relevant e-mails from any computer. This message does not constitute a commitment by Europol unless otherwise indicated.
*******************
------------------------------
Message: 4 Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2018 07:41:15 +0000 From: "Marcolla, Sara Veronica" <Sara.Marcolla@europol.europa.eu> To: 'Carlos Fria?as' <cfriacas@fccn.pt>, "'ncc-services-wg@ripe.net'" <ncc-services-wg@ripe.net> Subject: [ncc-services-wg] @EXT: RE: 2018-05 New Policy Proposal (Publication of Legal Address of Internet Number Resource Holder) - updating the proposal? Message-ID: <ED32B03A4D1A7448B86844EED9D4845D4EA5C59B@COIMBRA.europol.eu.int> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Hi Carlos,
I understand the logic behind the protection of LIRs for competition reasons - however I am positively sure that this right cannot be considered anywhere close to the right to privacy and protection of individuals.
Regarding your comment on the company change, I believe that the case of change of holdership should firstly have to pass the existing RIPE NCC due diligence checks for transfers/mergers. It would then still be useful to actually have the legal address of this new company, as it helps to identify the company who is the registered resource holder.
Sara
-----Original Message----- From: Carlos Fria?as [mailto:cfriacas@fccn.pt] Sent: 08 October 2018 23:50 To: Marcolla, Sara Veronica Cc: 'ncc-services-wg@ripe.net' Subject: Re: [ncc-services-wg] @EXT: 2018-05 New Policy Proposal (Publication of Legal Address of Internet Number Resource Holder) - updating the proposal?
On Mon, 8 Oct 2018, Marcolla, Sara Veronica wrote:
Hi everyone, Greetings,
All the comments exchanged in the list made me thinking a lot about the wording of this proposal. I have noticed that the lively discussion around the policy is bringing a lot of attention on the dichotomy between the individual (which I agree completely, should be protected in their fundamental rights, with provisions such as the GDPR and others), and the company/corporation. It seems to me so far that many of us would indeed support the idea of having the legal address published of companies, but having concerns about personal data. The aim of this proposal is indeed to focus on companies, not individuals, and even the smallest company has to be registered as such (if not for other reasons, for tax reasons). Individuals will be anyways protected by a hierarchically higher set of rules: the fundamental rights, such as those championed by GDPR for example. Well, LIR addresses are already published on the RIPE NCC's website. LIR's customers addresses may not be part of whois.ripe.net... well... i know some LIRs tend to protect their customers identity, to prevent competitors to approach them with better contractual conditions (this is not the case of the LIR i work for, which is a NREN)
At this point I am asking whether you support a proposal, the clarifies that only the legal address of companies will be published, and that states clearly that individuals information will be protected? After all, the reasoning here is that if a resource holder is registered with a national company registry, they have a legal address which can be published. This legal address is usually publicly available anyhow and can be then validated by the RIPE NCC. I see added value in "validation by the RIPE NCC", despite the natural cost this will bring...
However, i wonder what should be the procedure if RIPE NCC finds that company X registers a new company Y in a different country/economy resorting to a "virtual office" address.
Looking forward to hear the feedback to this idea for an amendment to the proposal. Good luck!
Best Regards, Carlos
Sara *******************
DISCLAIMER : This message is sent in confidence and is only intended for the named recipient. If you receive this message by mistake, you may not use, copy, distribute or forward this message, or any part of its contents or rely upon the information contained in it. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail and delete the relevant e-mails from any computer. This message does not constitute a commitment by Europol unless otherwise indicated.
*******************
*******************
DISCLAIMER : This message is sent in confidence and is only intended for the named recipient. If you receive this message by mistake, you may not use, copy, distribute or forward this message, or any part of its contents or rely upon the information contained in it. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail and delete the relevant e-mails from any computer. This message does not constitute a commitment by Europol unless otherwise indicated.
*******************
------------------------------
Message: 5 Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2018 10:13:48 +0200 From: Nik Soggia <registry@telnetwork.it> To: "'ncc-services-wg@ripe.net'" <ncc-services-wg@ripe.net> Subject: Re: [ncc-services-wg] @EXT: 2018-05 New Policy Proposal (Publication of Legal Address of Internet Number Resource Holder) - updating the proposal? Message-ID: <e3905e73-8c1d-6784-e3a5-aacf47215507@telnetwork.it> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15; format=flowed
Il 08/10/18 17:46, Marcolla, Sara Veronica ha scritto:
After all, the reasoning here is that if a resource holder is registered with a national company registry, they have a legal address which can be published. Maybe the key to make everyone happy is the word "can" instead of "must". Why not make it optional?
If companies are in good faith or they like the idea then they will use it, and they will also be happy to maintain the data. Otherwise it will be just a waste of time on another wrong/outdated/malicious dataset. How fun it is to check the validity of a validated address? Life is too short, right?
This legal address is usually publicly available anyhow and can be then validated by the RIPE NCC. Duplicating data instead of referencing it breaks the first database design rule. Companies are forced by law to keep their chamber of commerce data up to date. THAT is the best source of information and it is readily available. Don't reinvent the wheel.
This proposal is can of worms: - same data in many places is difficult to maintain and prone to errors - doesn't stop bad actors - quickly provides massive information to data harvesters and scammers
In my opinion this proposal is not the right way to identify a resource holder the way you dreamt. It's not a elegant solution and in general I have a bad feeling about it, imagine a blunt tool that not only will make a poor job but also will bring a lot of frustration.
Ok for me if it is optional, otherwise I'm against. Regards,