Hello David,
On what basis do you believe that postal contact information is required in
Whois information? I agree that street numbers and names should be
redacted/removed. Looking at PERSON, ROLE and ORGANISATION records in the Whois
database (at least for records pertaining to my INRs) it shows that the suburb,
state and postcode are contained within the one address line. Given how other
countries format their addresses, this may differ so I'm not sure how keeping
this information in bulk data would help. I would think that only the
state/province, postal code and country are sufficient for most statistical
purposes.
Now, when organisations such as Cogent (one of the largest Tier-1 transit
providers) abuse Whois information by emailing Whois contacts even though
they've been suspended by one RIR from Whois access (see John Curran's post on
NANOG's mailing list
https://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/2020-January/105156.html) I feel that
redaction of contact info from bulk Whois data is warranted.
I've reported violations to APNIC in the past, only as recently as
mid-December. I was advised that the email address reported does not belong to
a registered broker or member, yet 5 minutes of Google magic was able to
clearly link the sender to a current member. I sent this info back to them and
am still awaiting a reply. To date, I've not heard back.
Finally, why would a proposal need to state that violations have been reported
to the Secretariat?
Regards,Christopher Hawker
_______________________________________________
SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/[email protected]/
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
