On 9 Dec 2019, at 17:47, Roland Perry wrote:
My question is this: how can the organisations responsible for that former life be identified (in general terms) so that the end users can at least given a plausible explanation for why their connectivity has been so badly affected.
On 18 Dec 2019, at 9:51, Daniel Karrenberg wrote:
The not-so-good news: current policy is to not make it available because of privacy concerns. Unless there is pressure from the community that is not likely to change soon. I am no lawyer but I expect that this policy could change at least for data that is not ‘personal data’, which would be good enough for what you seek. But I guess that more than two people have to ask for it. A reasonably concise request from this WG would go a long way.
I'm asking for this, so as to build the number towards "more than two". I hope that the WG will indeed make such a request. I believe that the data should be open enough to allow the question, "what is the matter with this address block?" (my paraphrase) to be answered, while still protecting personal data. I expect that there will be a "grey area" between what should be open and what needs to be protected, and look to the NCC to make clear where the bounds of this grey area will lie. It is important that "privacy issues" is not allowed to become (as in some contexts, "health and safety" already has) a groundless, facile, but yet unassailable reason for refusal. For avoidance of doubt, I am not at all suggesting that the NCC has begun to use either of these phrases in such a way. Niall