Hi There has been some useful feedback already on this proposal. Perhaps I need to clarify some points and suggest some changes to the proposal. We have always wanted to keep the database as clean as possible. So whilst half a million extra person objects has no effect on the operation, we prefer them not to be there if they are serving no useful purpose. We have also been looking more closely at Data Protection issues recently. We have a number of points to discus with the Data Protection Task Force. But the bottom line is, we have to define the purpose(s) of the RIPE Database. We are only allowed to keep personal data in the database if it fits the defined purpose. Although we are only at the stage of drafting these definitions, it is difficult to see how unreferenced person objects could fit any definition that we finally agree on. As for e-mails, I have discussed the numbers with our IT operations guys. They are confident we can handle the worst case scenario with our mail servers. So I suggest we process the deletions with the normal notification procedure where e-mails are sent to any "notify:" addresses in the person objects and to the maintainers if maintained. We will use a modified notification text for this purpose. It will refer to a web page that explains why these person objects are being deleted. Regarding the issue of temporary unreferenced person objects. For example when someone is moving to a new company and de-references their person object from the old companies data and intends to reference it with the new companies data. The proposal allows for a (minimum) one month waiting period before deletion. It could be up to two months, depending on when it is de-referenced. If there is a feeling that this needs to be a longer period it can be extended. I hope this addresses the issues so far raised. Regards Denis Walker Database Group RIPE NCC