Hi, I’m out of office till 22 August. Any RIPE Labs related queries can be sent to l...@ripe.net and one of my colleagues will get back to you.
Cheers, Alun On 29 Jul 2022, at 17:24, denis walker via db-wg <db-wg@ripe.net> wrote: > Hi George > > On Fri, 29 Jul 2022, 16:12 George Michaelson via db-wg, <db-wg@ripe.net> > wrote: > The field is OPTIONAL in the schema. Therefore the maintainer surely > has "consented" to publication of the URL to geo, if the field exists: > It isn't pre-filled. The consent question here, is the maintainer and > their obligations in law, and the role of the RIPE NCC in offering a > publication service to the maintainer. The downstream consent > question, is about a CSV format file held elsewhere. > > The field is not PII. The contents of the geofeed file, which is NOT > in the RIPE NCC service might or might not be, but this is at worst, > an indirect pointer. The field is about addresses, it contains no > necessary PII in abstract. if I publish > http://some.where/~ggm/geofeed.csv then the URL has PII, Is that > really held to be a problem? Remember, I consented to posting the URL, > I had to hold the maintainer password, the NCC didn't make me do it. > > The legal team will have to answer this question but is facilitating a > service that leads to the identification of an individual the same (in law) > as providing the PII directly? > > > The field is operationally helpful to operators of IP address > services, BGP speakers, network operators. If a delegate of an address > has a concern, their first port of call is the publisher of the > geofeed file itself, not the RIPE NCC. > > I don't understand why the T&C have been interpreted to demand > re-writing to fix something, when this is a field which has obvious > utility, and low risk, given it is voluntary, and not prefilled or > mandated, and does not actually represent any PII breach in and of > itself. > > Does it do any harm to review the current wording of the purposes and how > they can be interpreted and perhaps make them more explicitly cover how the > database is used? > > Cheers > denis > Co-chair DB-WG > > > Truly, I think that a process has driven down a one-way street which > wasn't on the route plan, and isn't helping forward progress. I think > the wrong question has been posed, and very probably answered > correctly, but in the wrong context by legals. I think that if they > understood context, they might re-consider. I do not see why explicit > language change process burdens are needed to understand the > operational utility of this field in the schema. > > -George > > -- > > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or change > your subscription options, please visit: > https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/db-wg > -- > > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or change > your subscription options, please visit: > https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/db-wg
-- To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or change your subscription options, please visit: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/db-wg
