Dear Ronald,
Thank you for your questions. As others have correctly noted, the RIPE NCC does
have policies protecting the confidentiality of certain information provided by
our members. Our duty in this department stems from the mandate given to us by
the community in section 3.1 of the IPv4 po
In message <48758939-bb53-43ff-8855-49c1af18b...@v6x.org>,
=?utf-8?Q?Andreas_H=C3=A4rpfer?= wrote:
>I really have no idea where this discussion is heading, I am not a lawyer,
>etc. etc, but let me play "devil's advocat" and be a bit provocative :-)
That's fair.
>* My ad-hoc assumtion for any o
In message ,
Gert Doering wrote:
>On Tue, Aug 24, 2021 at 05:18:06PM -0700, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
>> There is no question in my mind that the former category of information MUST
>> be held in confidence by RIPE NCC. The latter category, maybe not so much.
>
>I agree that otherwise easily a
Hi,
On Tue, Aug 24, 2021 at 05:18:06PM -0700, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
> There is no question in my mind that the former category of information MUST
> be held in confidence by RIPE NCC. The latter category, maybe not so much.
I agree that otherwise easily attainable information ("chamber of c
> On 25. Aug 2021, at 17:17, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
>
> In message
>
> Leo Vegoda wrote:
>>
>> Are you making a proposal for the RIPE NCC to change the way it
>> operates, or something else?
>
> I only wish that I could even answer that question. Sasdly, I cannot, for
> the simple rea
In message
Leo Vegoda wrote:
>On Tue, Aug 24, 2021 at 5:18 PM Ronald F. Guilmette
> wrote:
>> As you will see from my immediately prior post however I am of the opinion
>> that there is a clear and bright line between THAT sort of "sensitive"
>> information (which might be used, misused, or abus
On Tue, Aug 24, 2021 at 5:18 PM Ronald F. Guilmette
wrote:
[...]
> As you will see from my immediately prior post however I am of the opinion
> that there is a clear and bright line between THAT sort of "sensitive"
> information (which might be used, misused, or abused if it were to fall
> into
In message , Gert Doering wrote:
>Leo has been around about as long as I have - and his understanding of
>the reasoning matches mine.
Excellent! All three of us have the exact same shared understanding, it
seems.
>Let me illustrate this a bit: "back in the days", ISPs were given IPv4
>allocati
In message
Leo Vegoda wrote:
>I have always understood that the confidentiality requirement was
>intended to apply to any business information supplied to justify an
>allocation of resources...
This has been my (informal) understanding also. And it seems altogether
reasonable.
>I understood t
(please see below)
On Tue, 24 Aug 2021, Gert Doering wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, Aug 24, 2021 at 11:26:12AM -0700, Leo Vegoda wrote:
I have always understood that the confidentiality requirement was
intended to apply to any business information supplied to justify an
allocation of resources and no
Hi,
On Tue, Aug 24, 2021 at 11:26:12AM -0700, Leo Vegoda wrote:
> I have always understood that the confidentiality requirement was
> intended to apply to any business information supplied to justify an
> allocation of resources and not the outcome, which is published in the
> RIPE Database and el
On Tue, Aug 24, 2021 at 10:50 AM Ronald F. Guilmette
wrote:
[...]
> 3.1 Confidentiality
>
> Internet Registries (IRs) have a duty of confidentiality to their
> registrants.
> Information passed to an IR must be securely stored and must not be
> distributed
> wider than necessar
In message <50a2de7b-3184-406a-8ae0-78062a807...@v6x.org>,
=?utf-8?Q?Andreas_H=C3=A4rpfer?= wrote:
>The "Due Diligence" document
>
>https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-748#5--confidentiality-and-privacy-issues
Thank you. Here is the relevant section:
5. Confidentiality and Privacy
In message ,
Leo Vegoda wrote:
>On Mon, Aug 23, 2021 at 6:38 PM Ronald F. Guilmette
> wrote:
>>
>> Some long time ago, somebody (I can't remember who anymore) told me that
>> "business information" given by a member to any RIR... which presumably
>> included RIPE... was considered to be "confiden
> On 24. Aug 2021, at 15:25, Leo Vegoda wrote:
>
> On Mon, Aug 23, 2021 at 6:38 PM Ronald F. Guilmette
> wrote:
>>
>> Some long time ago, somebody (I can't remember who anymore) told me that
>> "business information" given by a member to any RIR... which presumably
>> included RIPE... was co
On Mon, Aug 23, 2021 at 6:38 PM Ronald F. Guilmette
wrote:
>
> Some long time ago, somebody (I can't remember who anymore) told me that
> "business information" given by a member to any RIR... which presumably
> included RIPE... was considered to be "confidential" and would not
> thereafter be sha
Some long time ago, somebody (I can't remember who anymore) told me that
"business information" given by a member to any RIR... which presumably
included RIPE... was considered to be "confidential" and would not
thereafter be shared by the RIR staff with any other or outside party.
Now I am trying
17 matches
Mail list logo
