[anti-abuse-wg] WHOIS (AS204224)

HI Ronald

On 06/11/2015 05:48, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
> In message <563BF1E0.3090106 at yahoo.co.uk>,
> denis <ripedenis at yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On this point I believe you are wrong. "allow end users to create
>> accounts on their corporate web sites". This is not how the RIPE
>> Database works. The accountability for these 'accounts' is distributed.
>> The RIPE NCC has no relationship with many of the personal data sets
>> created in this database.
>
> I feel sure you will correct me if I'm wrong, but I suspect that what
> you most probably actually intended to say here is that RIPE has no
> _direct_ and/or _contractual_ relationship with some (many?) of the
> entities whose contact details appear in the RIPE data base.
>
> Would that not be a more precise formulation of what you had intended
> to convey?
>
> Quite obviously RIPE NCC has a "relationship"... in the broadest sense
> of the word... with all of the entities whose contact details appear
> in the data base.  The relationship, at the very least, is that RIPE
> NCC is storing (and yes, distributing) contact details for these entities.
>
> It may seem like I am quibbling over a minor semantic point here, and
> perhaps I am, but I think that it is somewhat inaccurate to say that
> there's no relationship at all between RIPE / RIPE NCC and the entities
> whose data is in the data base.

It is not a semantic point it is a legal point. (I am sure the RIPE NCC 
legal team will correct me if I am wrong :) ) The RIPE NCC is the Data 
Controller for this database. They manage the service and facilitate its 
use by other parties. Some of the RIPE NCC members in some countries 
satisfy their local laws by documenting every customer in the RIPE 
Database. This results in hundreds of thousands of INETNUM/PERSON object 
pairs created in the RIPE Database.

The RIPE NCC has no relationship of any sort with these people. Their 
personal information is in this database because they consented to it 
being put their by someone they have signed a contract with. The RIPE 
NCC has no knowledge of that contract or it's terms.

Add to that all the possible language issues and I am not sure how you 
will expect the RIPE NCC to validate all this personal contact data with 
people who they have no relationship with and who may have never heard 
of the RIPE NCC or RIPE. Anyone who receives an email from an 
organisation they have never heard of, possibly in a language they don't 
understand, asking to validate personal information...well you know how 
that will be treated these days.

Also bear in mind a single data validation is quite pointless. What is 
valid today may not be tomorrow. So you cannot trust data that was 
validated yesterday. To have any benefit this data would have to be 
routinely re-validated. Given the quantity of personal data sets in the 
RIPE Database (we are talking millions), many of whom have never heard 
of the RIPE NCC, to ask them to undertake this exercise would result in 
the RIPE NCC being reported to many law enforcement authorities for 
phishing.

cheers
denis

>
>> So first of all any validation process must also be distributed.
>
> The conclusion does not follow from the premise.
>
>> Are you
>> suggesting the RIPE NCC should re-check what was entrusted to the
>> members to do?
>
> Bingo!
>
>> In the end most members do enter valid data that they have checked by
>> some means in good faith.
>
> In the end, most people do not steal my bicycle.
>
> I still lock it up at night, regardless.
>
>>> So let me see if I understand this...
>>>
>>> So on the one hand, performing even just some simple process to
>>> try to validate data fields that are already in the public data
>>> base is an "over engineered" solution, but YOU want to totally
>>> re-engineer the entire data base from the ground up.  Is that
>>> about the size of it?  Did I miss anything?
>>
>> Yes you did miss something. I never suggested we through out the baby
>> with the bathwater. I proposed a discussion on reviewing the data model.
>> That is not suggesting we through out everything we have now. It may
>> lead to re-arranging data, storing it more efficiently, or maybe storing
>> different data, or only allowing some of the data to be seen by groups
>> of people who need it.
>
> Any and all of that sounds like it might involve some really SERIOUS
> and hevy-weight re-engineering to me!  That's not to say that any of
> what you're suggesting isn't useful, and perhaps even vitally needed.
> I am only reiterating my point that it seems rather bizzare to assert
> that a purely procedural change, i.e. to begin to validate the data
> that's already there, is an "over engineered" step to take when you
> are proposing some different (and, it seems, almost entirely unrelated)
> ideas about how to restructure... perhaps radically... the data base.
>
>> As I said above, validating data in a system with a distributed
>> accountability is not going to be simple.
>
> On this point I agree... UNLESS some single central entity undertakes
> that task on behalf of the entire community.  Some single central
> entity like, um, RIPE NCC.
>
>> I think you have over complicated my point while over simplifying yours.
>
> Understood.  I hold the exact same view, i.e. I think that you have
> over-complicated my point while over-simplifing your's.
>
>> My main point was that there are many issues with personal data,
>> including validation, and maybe we should take a step back and look at
>> them all.
>
> "Taking a step back" may or may not be the wisest course of action.
>
> http://report.president.msu.edu/360/_/img/assets/crew-view/jim-peck/jim-standing-near-edge-of-cliff.jpg
>
>
> Regards,
> rfg
>