[address-policy-wg] @EXT: Inputs/observations from EUROPOLon proposal 2023-04

Hi Tore

Before I dig deeper into what you said let me first focus on two
points that you just made.

On Thu, 14 Dec 2023 at 16:34, Tore Anderson <tore at fud.no> wrote:
>
> Hello Emmanuel, and thank you for your message!
>
> Please find our comments and questions inline below:
>
> Did this consultation take the information in the Impact Analysis into
> account – in particular the clarification made by the RIPE NCC that
> 2023-04 does *not* change the current policies and procedures when it
> comes to the registration requirements for End User contact
> information?

This is NOT clarified at all in the Impact Analysis. Why are you still
saying this when I know, you know and by now probably every one knows,
it is simply NOT true. You acknowledged again in your reply to me
yesterday that this proposal removes that famous line from the current
policy:
"When an End User has a network using public address space this must
be registered separately with the contact details of the End User."
Removing this line *does* change current policies and would change
procedures if the RIPE NCC was enforcing the current policy. We have
been through this so many times. This is a very clear statement that
says ALL assignments MUST contain the End User contact details.
Removing this line means that assignments no longer need to contain
any End User contact details. That is a significant change to the
details that may or may not be entered into future assignment objects.

>
> As clarified by the RIPE NCC in the Impact Analysis, the current
> policies and procedures are already allowing assignments to be
> “somewhat anonymised”. This is not a change that 2023-04 will bring
> about.

Again this is simply not true. That line you propose to remove does
not currently permit anonymised assignments as they MUST include
contact details of the End User. So this IS a change that 2023-04 WILL
bring about.

Will you please finally acknowledge that 2023-04 will allow totally
anonymised, individual assignment objects that the current policy does
not allow? (This is without even using the aggregated feature you are
proposing to introduce.)

cheers
denis

>
> Best regards,
> Tore and Jeroen