[address-policy-wg] [Ext] Policies and Guidelines for Assignments for Network Infrastructure and End User Networks

Töma Gavrichenkov wrote:

> Hi Leo,
> 
> Just to make it 100% clear for me: do you mean to say that you 
> support my proposal No. 2?

I believe that was:

> 2) Change 6.2 to reflect the fact that the contact information of End
> Users who are individuals not MAY, but rather MUST be substituted with
> the contact data of the service provider. This perfectly reflects
> currently ongoing legislation trends as well as a concern in the
> society at large, and also would be seen as a responsible attitude of
> an ISP community towards the personal data safety — an attitude the
> ISP community hardly used to show before.

As someone currently employed by ICANN, I don't advocate for or against address policy proposals. I think I can note that Article 3 of the RIPE Database Terms and Conditions defines the database's purpose, and includes:

"Facilitating coordination between network operators (network problem 
resolution, outage notification etc.)"

I expect that most subscribers to broadband Internet services would not be effective at coordinating with network operators as they are almost always using simple plug and play equipment. On that basis, I don't really think these subscribers really are network operators as it is not reasonable to expect them to make configuration changes more complex than powering off their home router.

I read 6.2 as trying to distinguish between smaller, single-homed networks operated by organizations with some IT staff and a home network with a few public IP addresses. In the former case there might be some point in having contact details published.

Kind regards,

Leo Vegoda
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 3739 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20181105/873de7fb/attachment.p7s>