Hoping that this email finds you in good health!

Please find my comments below, inline...

Le lundi 20 juin 2022, Ronald F. Guilmette via db-wg <db-wg@ripe.net> a écrit :

In message <CAKvLzuFA0y8mOzPiiy4tHBCRUNUBbQgJc-DD54E-S+0TW=StiA@mail.gmail.com>
denis walker <ripedenis@gmail.com> wrote:

>

>
>> [...]
>
>> What gives you or anyone the right to take away a member's rights to have
>> their true and actual mailing address in their own public WHOIS records?
>
>Again you simply don't understand the issue. "their true and actual". This
>address is 'defined' in the database documentation as "The postal address
>of a contact related to the organisation". That can be anyone based in any
>location in the world, as Europol have discovered.

Sounds like a definite problem to me! So lets fix that. Let's require
*at least* the REAL name and address of each member to be present in that
member's public WHOIS record.

Every new member has to submit some identifying documents at the time they
first become members, right? If it is a corporation, then a copy of the
formal and legal incorporation document(s) must be submitted as part of the
application process. If it is person, then either a copy of that person's
passport or some other form of government-issued identification document
must be submitted as part of the new/prospective member's application for
membership, right? So we take this "real" member name & address info,
copy it off those bona fide documents, and stick the same data into the
member's public-facing WHOIS record. Is this just, like, too simple,
or what?

Hi Ronald,

Thanks for your email, brother.

...i agree, you should be a bit fair with Denis :-/

You know, reducing your tone would not, imho,

imply any loss in the value and strength of your

arguments at all :-/

Having said the above, these [1,2,3,4,5] RIPE Lab

articles provide, imho, interesting discussions,

and very useful information, on topic...

[1]: <https://labs.ripe.net/author/ad_castle/lessons-learned-from-ripe-when-creating-a-new-community-database-in-a-very-different-field/>

[2]: <https://labs.ripe.net/author/matt_parker/the-assisted-registry-check-let-us-help-you/>

[3]: <https://labs.ripe.net/author/athina/how-were-implementing-the-gdpr-legal-grounds-for-lawful-personal-data-processing-and-the-ripe-database/>

[4]: <https://labs.ripe.net/author/denis/review-of-database-consistency-service-dbconstat/>

[5]: <https://labs.ripe.net/author/denis/diff-functionality-in-the-ripe-database/>

As I have said, if there are natural person journalists, or activists, or
other folks who have other issues pertaining to lifestyle or whatever, and
who can make at least a prima facia case that they need to have both (a)
number resources AND also (b) privacy of their PII, then allow NCC to
accept their requests to be exempt from publication of their PII on a
case by case basis. For everybody else however, what you see (in the public
WHOIS) is what you get, i.e. the real names and the real addresses.

Problem solved! And everybody's happy.

At least my humble person will be!

Many thanks for this alternative, i fully support.

...imho, a solution of a real problem shouldn't be

implemented, if it removes the ability and solution

that at least network operators (NO) actually have;

and which allow them to freely and *privately*

communicate each other...(home office addresses

might be considered a distinct concern, though...).

That kind of solutions would remove available,

enventually *good*, solutions (new problems) and

may contribute to more fragmentation within NO's

community; amongst other possible consequences.

https://labs.ripe.net/author/kranjbar/proposed-improvements-to-dummification-of-personal-data-in-the-ripe-database/#:~:text=It%20has%20been,exposed%20with%20no%20limits.

https://labs.ripe.net/author/kranjbar/proposed-improvements-to-dummification-of-personal-data-in-the-ripe-database/#:~:text=The%20current%20dummification,the%20data%20protection%20rules.

https://labs.ripe.net/author/kranjbar/proposed-improvements-to-dummification-of-personal-data-in-the-ripe-database/#:~:text=Proposed%20algorithm:,the%20objects%20below:

https://labs.ripe.net/author/alexband/improving-the-management-of-ripe-database-objects-with-joint-responsibility/#:~:text=In%20the%20future,who%20query%20it.

The only people who could be against this are people intent on committing
fraud or some other kind of nefarious skulduggery on the Internet WHILE
USING THEIR ASSIGNED NUMBER RESOURCES.

Ronald...this is not what drove my support to your

proposed alternative :'-(

...and as said, above, imho you absolutely not need

to use that kind of language to be heard, brother.

Remain blessed, y'all!

Shalom,

--sb.

>> So now, why don't you re-submit this proposal and instead propose that *all*
>> mailing address information, including even the country name, be redacted
>> from the data base for *all* members?
>
>It will be optional.

Wait... WHAT???

Could you please repeat that? I want to make sure that even the people way
in the back heard that.

So your -actual- proposal is to make *all* WHOIS information for *all* classes
of RIPE members "optional"???

Take your time. If you misspoke, then by all means, please rephrase so as
clarify what you really meant to say.

Regards,
rfg

--

[...]

Best Regards !
__
baya.sylvain[AT cmNOG DOT cm]|<https://cmnog.cm/dokuwiki/Structure>
Subscribe to Mailing List: <https://lists.cmnog.cm/mailman/listinfo/cmnog/>
__
#‎LASAINTEBIBLE‬|#‎Romains15‬:33«Que LE ‪#‎DIEU‬ de ‪#‎Paix‬ soit avec vous tous! ‪#‎Amen‬!»
‪#‎MaPrière‬ est que tu naisses de nouveau. #Chrétiennement‬
«Comme une biche soupire après des courants d’eau, ainsi mon âme soupire après TOI, ô DIEU!»(#Psaumes42:2)