[address-policy-wg] 2023-04 Review Phase (Add AGGREGATED-BY-LIR status for IPv4 PA assignments)

On Fri, Jan 12, 2024 at 8:57 AM Sebastian Graf <ripe-lists at sebastian-graf.at>
wrote:

> Dear Jan!
>

Dear Sebastian, thanks for chiming in!


>
> As mentioned in my previous e-mail: Would you please post the section of
> the policy that you belive has the NCC's interpretation differ from the
> actual wording/language used?
>

https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2023-04

6.2 Network Infrastructure and End User Networks
…

"When an End User has a network using public address space this must be
registered separately with the contact details of the End User. Where the
End User is an individual rather than an organisation, the contact
information of the service provider may be substituted for the End Users."


The removal of this text has seen many strange arguments, such as GDPR
(which is already covered by the text being removed).


Because i have yet to find a section that states explicitly what is
> considered valid vs invalid contact information (other than being out of
> date or information that does not provide a contact to the user in a
> timely manner). Or a section that restricts what kind of data is
> permissable for "contact information".


As I understand it, the RIPE NCC's interpretation, and the one that Tore
leans on, is that the text does not mean that organisation End User contact
details must be published, even though they are not individual users.

The argument therefore appears to be that the text "When an End User has a
network using public address space this must be registered separately with
the contact details of the End User." should be read as "" in the current
policy document, and that changing "When an End User has a network using
public address space this must be registered separately with the contact
details of the End User." to "" changes nothing in the policy.


My stance is that this changes the policy, but that it changes the policy
to be in line with current practice.

(As a side note, 10-15 years ago, my employer received quite a lot of flak
for NOT publishing contact details for every single customer that had the
use of single, dedicated IP addresses, as part of web hosting or colocation
services, with rerference to this very policy. How times change.)

-- 
Jan
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20240112/e5e6839d/attachment.html>