Hi Sander Thanks for the comments and kicking off the new discussion. I have to admit I was a bit confused by some of the comments in the impact analysis, including these.
On Sun, 9 Oct 2022 at 13:33, Sander Steffann via db-wg <db-wg@ripe.net> wrote: > > Hi, > > > The RIPE NCC has prepared an impact analysis on this latest proposal > > version to support the community’s discussion. > > > > You can find the proposal and impact analysis at: > > https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2022-01 > > https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2022-01#impact-analysis > > The executive board feedback corresponds to my opinion on this policy, > especially these points: > - It significantly reduces the usability for one of its core purpose - being > able to contact resource holders about their number resources. In what way does my proposal reduce contact with resource holders, never mind significantly? Currently you can contact a resource holder via the ORGANISATION object that may contain: Postal address Phone number Fax number Several email addresses Several contact references If this proposal is accepted it may still contain all of the above. The only changes are that I am saying the phone and email should be business and not their personal details and postal address is optional. A resource holder who wants to add their postal address will still do so. Those who don't may currently add a false address. So there is really no difference in the way you can contact a resource holder. Note that the Database Task Force also recommended making postal address optional and went further to suggest it should then be deprecated. > - It puts at risk the public chain of custody of Internet number resources. I don't see how this proposal in any way impacts the public chain of custody of internet number resources. On the other hand the recent proposal, 2022-02, would completely destroy this chain. > - We would welcome a discussion that focuses more on which parts of the data > are publicly available, rather than a sweeping removal. This is an interesting comment. My first version of this proposal did suggest making some of the data private. There was strong opposition to that idea. But again this proposal is not suggesting any sweeping removal of data (unlike 2022-02). I suggest changing the data from personal based to business role based, not removal. Yes, the PERSON object will be removed. But the contact data will remain as business ROLE data. cheers denis proposal author > > I think a new and more detailed discussion is indeed necessary for this > proposal to go anywhere. The current proposal is not acceptable to me. > > Cheers, > Sander > > > -- > > 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
