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

Dear Jan!

Thank you for your reply. But you have not answerred my question.

We are all clear/well aware on the fact that the policy states 
(paraphrasing here: resources need to be registered and the registions 
need to have contact information).

We are looking for the DEFINITION of "contact details of the End User.". 
This is not directly defined (as far as i can tell) and is therefore 
open for interpretation.

Unless i missed something?

Regards


On 1/12/24 09:21, Jan Ingvoldstad wrote:
>
> 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/20240112/51e7fcd6/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: OpenPGP_0xCB3F9792B5ACD96C.asc
Type: application/pgp-keys
Size: 3935 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP public key
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20240112/51e7fcd6/attachment.bin>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: OpenPGP_signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 840 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20240112/51e7fcd6/attachment.sig>