[db-wg] No more personal objects in the RIPE Database?

I should always double check the text before sending.

this: "I'm not sure which policy proposal should be updated" should read 
"I'm not sure which policy should be updated"

/elvis

On 2/22/19 13:14, Elvis Daniel Velea wrote:
>
> Hey Hans,
>
> thanks for following up on this.
>
> Before we start working on this, is a policy proposal really needed? 
> I'm not sure which policy proposal should be updated.
>
> I would be happy to make a policy proposal - I will need your help or 
> Marco's.
>
> @Denis - do you want to co-author?
>
> Elvis
>
> On 2/22/19 06:40, Hans Petter Holen via db-wg wrote:
>>
>> Following Denis’s presentation at the last database working group 
>> meeting and Elvis’s messages to the RIPE NCC members list I think it 
>> is time to have a new discussion on the need for personal objects in 
>> the RIPE Database.
>>
>> https://ripe77.ripe.net/presentations/63-PERSONobjects.pdfhttps://ripe77.ripe.net/archives/video/2298/https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/members-discuss/2019-February/003295.html
>>
>>
>> This is not questioning previous legal assessments of GDPR 
>> compliance, but taking a step back and looking at how would we do 
>> this if we were to design the RIPE Database with today's privacy 
>> requirements in mind.
>>
>>
>> The ccTLD for .NO, Norid made an update to their service last year to 
>> completely remove person objects from their database. 
>> https://www.norid.no/uploads/2017/12/Datamodell-revidert-en-v2.pdf
>>
>>
>> In terms of the RIPE Database, that would mean that resources would 
>> refer to organisational objects and roles, not to personal objects.
>>
>>
>> Perhaps Denis and/or Elvis would propose a policy change in this respect?
>>
>>
>> Hans Petter
>>
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/db-wg/attachments/20190222/16abbf4e/attachment.html>