<html> <head> <meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type"> </head> <body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"> <tt>HI Athina Thanks for the legal perspective. However, there are some grey areas here that need to be considered if we are looking at expanding the historical data access. I see three distinct groups of objects in the database. The two you mentioned are personal data objects (PERSON and ROLE) and operational data objects (eg INETNUM, INET6NUM, AUT-NUM). But there are also objects that exist for accountability and data management. These would include ORGANISATION, MNTNER, KEY-CERT, IRT. I think both the legal and use case perspectives of showing the history of these objects should be considered separately from the other two object types. Personally I don't think my MNTNER object should even be visible to anyone else, never mind the history of it. (Currently we do show the history of MNTNER objects.) It contains information about how I manage my operational data within my organisational structure, ie security tokens, who is notified of changes and (with personalised auth coming) who is authorised to change my data. I don't see any valid reason (within the stated purpose of the database) why anyone outside of my organisation should be able to see this information. I certainly don't see a use case for showing the history of this information. </tt><tt> Also ROLE objects should not contain personal data. The original design of the database was for PERSON objects to hold personal data and ROLE objects group people together in a corporate or business role. But this was never enforced. So people used these two objects almost interchangeably. I believe it is still possible to retrospectively enforce this condition and that we should do. Then ROLE objects will no longer be personal data, but more data management objects. cheers denis </tt> <div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 02/06/2015 15:36, Athina Fragkouli wrote: </div> <blockquote cite="mid:556DB155.1070500@ripe.net" type="cite"> <pre wrap="">Dear colleagues, In response to the question raised on the Database WG mailing list, “…whether there would be legal restrictions or considerations with regards to publishing information about deleted objects or the deleted objects themselves”, please find below a preliminary analysis from a legal perspective. The RIPE Database contains a variety of types of data. A distinction should be made between database objects that contain personal data (i.e. person and role objects) and those that do not (i.e. inetnum, inet6num, autnum, etc.). For database objects containing personal data, the Personal Data Protection Act in the Netherlands applies. More specifically, according to the Act personal data may be collected for specific, explicitly defined and legitimate purposes. Once collected, this data must not be kept for any longer than is necessary to achieve the purpose for which it has been collected. In consultation with the RIPE community, the RIPE Data Protection Task Force identified the reason why personal data should be inserted into, and made publicly available through, the RIPE Database. The reason the Internet community initially requested that this data be made publicly available was for Internet operation purposes. Internet network operators should have each other’s contact details (which is considered to be personal data by the Act) in order to facilitate communication among the individuals responsible for networks in case of operational problems in the network (troubleshooting, abuse, etc.). Accordingly, the RIPE Database contains the contact details of individuals that are responsible for resolving operational problems in a network. However, if an individual no longer has this responsibility, this individual’s contact details must be deleted from the RIPE Database. If the RIPE community wishes to have access to contact details of individuals that were responsible for resolving operational problems in the past, then the RIPE community must have a specific, explicitly defined and legitimate purpose for it. If such a purpose is defined, the RIPE NCC will proceed with investigating the conditions under which this feature can be implemented in compliance with the Act. Implementation of this feature may include prior consent of these individuals. For more information about the implementation of this legislation in the RIPE Database and related services, please see the RIPE NCC Data Protection Report [1]. For database objects that do not contain personal data, there are no restrictions in terms of personal data protection. If the RIPE Community wishes the RIPE NCC to include the feature for publishing the history of deleted objects in the RIPE Database, the RIPE NCC will proceed with the implementation of this feature. As part of this process the RIPE NCC will need to investigate and possibly update its procedures and governance documents to ensure compliance with its legal obligations. Updating the relevant governance documents is subject to the RIPE NCC procedural document “Adoption Process for RIPE NCC Corporate Documents” [2]. Kind regards, Athina Fragkouli Legal Counsel RIPE NCC [1] <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.ripe.net/about-us/legal/ripe-ncc-data-protection-report">https://www.ripe.net/about-us/legal/ripe-ncc-data-protection-report</a> [2] <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.ripe.net/about-us/corporate-governance/adoption-process-for-ripe-ncc-corporate-documents">https://www.ripe.net/about-us/corporate-governance/adoption-process-for-ripe-ncc-corporate-documents</a> </pre> </blockquote> </body> </html>