[anti-abuse-wg] personal data in the RIPE Database

Am 04.06.22 um 02:05 schrieb Ronald F. Guilmette:
> In message <c7b0643d-54db-6a97-999a-fbb9ce0980b7 at heeg.de>,
> Hans-Martin Mosner <hmm at heeg.de> wrote:
>
>> For resources allocated to legal entities (companies, organizations, etc.)
>> an identification of the organization should be mandatory.
> Would you agree also that such identification of non-person legal entities
> that are the registrants of number resources should be:
>
>      a)  public, and
>
>      b)  accurate and consistant with the bona fides that were submitted to
>          RIPE NCC at the time the member was made a member, and at any & all
>          times thereafter when the non-person member requested or was granted
>          number resources?
Yes, with the addition that whenever the identification of a legal entity changes, it needs to be updated. "Accurate" 
and "consistent" may be at conflict when initial information was inaccurate, I'd prefer accurate over consistent.
> If you say yes to both, then I am compelled to point out there there is,
> as far as I understand it, *no* requirement, within the RIPE region, at
> present for there to be *any* correlation between what appears in any
> public RIPE WHOIS record and the actual bona fides of the corresponding
> member, the -actual- identity o which remain secret & hidden behind an
> opaque wall of stony silence, backed up by RIPE's legal counsel.

I can't really judge this, but I see why that is your point of view.

To be clear, I am just a participant in this mailing list, have never taken part in WG meetings, don't have the 
slightest insight into why certain information is withheld from public view, and as such I can only guess. Organizations 
with numerous stakeholders having different interests tend to be blocked by unanimous consensus and veto rules, so it's 
no surprise that RIPE seems to be afflicted by this, too.

What such organizations need to come up with is a mechanism that allows them to deal with problem members without being 
blocked by them and their allies, while not succumbing to a dictatorship of the majority (majority decisions aren't 
always the best) or some central authority. As you point out, this is an issue with other organizations, too, but it's 
by far not limited to the ones you listed.

I still believe in reason to a certain extent, although it takes a big leap of faith in light of reality.

Cheers,
Hans-Martin