Thanks Philip, I think that's an important point to remain savvy to. I think it's important to go back to, what is the purpose for which bulk access is provided, and whether the proposal interferes with that purpose or not. Noting the contents of the above and the assertion that folks using information derived from bulk access will be prosecuted - but no evidence of this actually occurring despite strong indicators that whois information is being used for unsolicited marketing (something which I can most certainly also report) ... in the absence of seeing actual negative consequences to these actors i'm comfortable with seeing information removed or anonymised - and up until doing so detracts from the purpose for which the bulk access is being provided, there's basically no impact. (Regular whois not impacted - just bulk).
I support the proposal but the rider I would like to see on it, is to challenge APNIC to revalidate the reasons it provides bulk access, the assurance has that the database is being used for legitimate purposes in compliance with the AUP, and its actions in response to reports of abuse. Beyond that - if reducing the level of detail in the bulk output has no negative impact, why not? (Agree that network operators must be identifiable and reachable. Changes only to the bulk scope won't prevent this, unless the bulk view of the data is being used for that purpose. I suppose there are legitimate services that might have bulk access agreements for that purpose - I guess only APNIC can tell us if that's true.) Regards Mark. On Tue, 14 Jan 2025 at 15:02, Philip Paeps <[email protected]> wrote: > On 2025-01-14 00:46:49 (+0800), Fernando Frediani wrote: > > Although I do understand the motivations to this proposal, I normally > > don't like much this feel that may look obvious to many to remove as > > much as contact data in order to not be bothered with marketing and > > sales content due to the concern that make things more difficult for > > legitimate need to get in touch for troubleshooting and legal demands. > > > > If you are operating an Autonomous System and have responsibilities > > over it you must be able to be easily contacted in order to deal with > > the legitimate demands you commited when you became one, and for that > > there will be some burden which if reasonable should be accepted. > > > > I understand the proposal suggests removing it from the bulk access, > > but it has not been clear how it will work and how easy it will be for > > those with legitimate need to get these contact details, if it will be > > with not human interaction or if someone will need to fill a form and > > justify, etc ? > > Note that "bulk access" in this policy proposal (as I read it -- do > correct me if I'm wrong) specifically refers to this service: > https://www.apnic.net/manage-ip/using-whois/bulk-access/. > > The overwhelming majority of network operators in the world do not have > bulk data access agreements with APNIC and would therefore not be > affected in any way by this policy proposal. > > Philip > _______________________________________________ > SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/[email protected]/ > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] >
_______________________________________________ SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/[email protected]/ To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
