Antwort: Re: Deletion of .de domain objects

Hello Daniel,

On 30.06.00 12:05 Daniel Roesen <noc at entire-systems.com> wrote:
> 
> Dear Sabine,
> 
> On Fri, Jun 30, 2000 at 10:39:51AM +0200, Sabine Dolderer/Denic wrote:
> > speaking for DENIC ;-). I will try to comment about the reasons why we
> > have (or even must) done the migration.
> 
> Please explain why you remove the well-working maintainer scheme.

We don't remove the maintainer scheme. What we have done is to protect 
every Person which hasn't a maintainer with our maintainer to prevent 
people from deleting unreferenced objects. 

As these updates (~100.000) was generated, a lot of people started to 
recognize that there was a problem and sends updates with their 
maintainer.

If you understand the RIPE queueing model you will know that small updates 
are served faster from RIPE than the bigger ones to keep chances fair. 

Therefore people saw that we try to put our maintainer to their one day 
earlier updated persons. They don't see that these requests are send one 
week earlier not knowing about the maintainer.

As these updates were maid accidentally this was corrected later.

BtW. If somebody wants to change a DENIC-P maintainer whith his own one. 
This can be done either by the DENIC member he cooperated with (prefered 
;-) ) or by hostmaster at denic.de.

BUT: Please keep in mind - we will go completely out of the RIPE-DB there 
is no need to create own maintainers for the meantime.

> 
> > There were a lot of pressure from our dataprotection office that due 
to
> > our business we pubish data (or we urge provider to puplish data of 
their
> > customers) which is not allowed to publish under German data 
protection
> > laws.
> 
> It is allowed. Every customer agreed that his information is published
> in a public database.

I want not to go too deeply in this discussion but believe me that it's 
not that easy. I still use these argumentation too hoping noone proofs it 
;-). 

> 
> > Mainly the existence of the inverse query feature and the publishing
> > of data like phone-, faxnumbers and email addresses was critisized.
> 
> Regarding phone, fax and email addresses: with this logic even
> phone books would be illegal.

If you go for a telefon you are explicitely ask if you want to have 
additionally to the telefonline a phonebook entry. If you refuse you still 
get the line.

> 
> > I am really sorry that due to this discussion I get the feeling
> > that people felt we are doing things without thinking or good
> > reasons or just to make them angry.
> 
> Please explain why this was all negotiated behind closed doors
> (RIPE-Meetings and hostmaster-l ARE closed doors) although it has
> a wide impact on ALL domain customers and non-DENIC-members
> (resellers).

RIPE-Meetings are open to everybody. The minutes are published on the web. 
Why do you beleave they are closed? Maybe you can give me a hint where you 
think that these sort of discussions should take place.

Best Regards
Sabine

> 
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Daniel Roesen
> Entire Systems NOC
> 
> --
> Entire Systems Network Operations Center noc at entire-systems.com
> Entire Systems GmbH - Ferbachstrasse 12 - 56203 Hoehr-Grenzhausen, 
Germany
> InterNIC-Handle: ES1238-ORG  RIPE-Handle: ESN10-RIPE Tel: +49 2624 
9550-55
> GnuPG/PGP Key-ID: 0xBF3C40C9 
http://www.entire-systems.com/noc/noc-key.asc
> GnuPG/PGP Fingerprint:  1F3F B675 1A38 D87C EB3C  6090 C6B9 DF48 BF3C 
40C9
> 
Sabine  Dolderer 
DENIC eG
Wiesenhüttenplatz 26
D-60329 Frankfurt

eMail: Sabine.Dolderer at denic.de
Fon: +49 69 27235 0
Fax: +49 69 27235 235