That's a good point Mark. Some information on the number of complaints or the number of access requests/ agreements would be helpful.
Regards ________________________________________________________ Anupam Agrawal | India Internet Foundation - Chair | 91 905 170 3611 On Fri, Jan 17, 2025 at 9:20 AM Mark Foster <[email protected]> wrote: > 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]
_______________________________________________ SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/[email protected]/ To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
