[anti-abuse-wg] Privacy requirements, was Spam FAQs

Russ,

On Mon, 2011-12-19 at 15:54 -0500, russ at consumer.net wrote:
> >What you're forgetting it that RIPE NCC have finite resources.
> 
> I agree that RIPE has to limit access to prevent DOS attacks or 
> slowdowns to the system.  However, I am nowhere near that limit
> and they have told me the reason is that I cannot have unrestricted 
> access is because EU privacy laws restrict "unlimited access."
> They told me I could continue making requests at my current level if I 
> used a "-r" switch but I would not get the abuse contact info.
> I would run my own mirror except I would not get the abuse contact info.

See, this is what's great about the way things work in the RIPE region!

If you were dealing with, say, a bank or an airline or even a
governmental department and did not like one of their bureaucratic
rules, you would have little or no recourse. Luckily, the RIPE NCC takes
their policies from the RIPE community. So all you need to do is make a
rational policy proposal directing the RIPE NCC to set their contact
information publication policy as you prefer (although this must of
course bow to Dutch law), and get consensus from the community on it.

Unfortunately, you seem to be the only one in favor of lifting the Whois
restrictions so you may have a tough time getting consensus on a policy
proposal.

But who knows? A carefully worded policy proposal may gain widespread
support! Brian has already offered to help you create one, so I eagerly
await the results. I'd be happy to read a draft if you're nervous about
going forward without discussing it with someone privately first.

--
Shane