<html> <head> <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii"> <style type="text/css" style="display:none;"> P {margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;} </style> </head> <body dir="ltr"> <div style="font-family: Calibri, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"> Ronald, can you please deny or confirm if you are being paid for your posts ? article writers are being paid by the count of words, and your posts are seems to be usually very tedious, specially when you sometimes add more many words to explain and clarify basic technical terms, when you initially reaching out to a technical audience, like you are trying to make your posts as long as possible. </div> <div style="font-family: Calibri, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"> </div> <div style="font-family: Calibri, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"> I would ask you, and I'm sure that many have the same opinion, not to flood the mailing lists with long and tedious posts, write your posts shortly please, please ask your employers to be paid per posts and not per words. </div> <div id="appendonsend"></div> <hr style="display:inline-block;width:98%" tabindex="-1"> <div id="divRplyFwdMsg" dir="ltr">From: db-wg <db-wg-bounces@ripe.net> on behalf of Ronald F. Guilmette via db-wg <db-wg@ripe.net> Sent: Saturday, January 30, 2021 6:42 AM To: Database WG <db-wg@ripe.net> Subject: [db-wg] "Hidden" historical WHOIS records <div> </div> </div> <div class="BodyFragment"> <div class="PlainText">The Co-Chairman's declaration that my prior post was off-topic for this mailing list... an assertion that I take strong exception to... has at least had the salutary effect of reminding me of a number of what I consider to be "open issues" -- issues which ARE quite unambiguously on-topic for this mailing list, and which I first broached here way back around December 3rd: <a href="https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/db-wg/2020-December/006736.html"> https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/db-wg/2020-December/006736.html</a> At that time and ever since I do not believe that I have seen any resoponse to the clear and pointed questions I posed in the message linked to above. I thus am now obliged to restate and reiterate those still-pending questions. As part of my effort to clarify my goals, vis a vis historical WHOIS transparency, back on December 3rd I threw out what I felt would be a perfectly ludicrous and absurd suggestion, just for retorical purposes, in order to try to make a point. I said something along the lines of "Hey why don't you all just make the entire RIPE WHOIS data base private rather than public?" I felt sure that when I did this that at least some of the denizens of this list... at least the few who might still care about either transparency or accountability... would immediately recognize the utter absurdity of my retorical suggestion, and that those folks, at least, would get up on their hind legs to vigorously protest any such move away from the longstanding and historical open and public nature of the WHOIS data base in all five regions. I was thus shocked and more than a little dismayed to see some of the folks here on this list taking my suggestion as something other than the lame joke and retorical device it was intended to be. Some folks here, it seems, would be entirely fine with hiding literally *everything* from the eyes of outside and independent investigators, including but not limited to me personally -- outside and independent investigators who's only goals are honesty, fairness, and a lack of thievery and self-dealing on the part of RIPE "insiders". I will not mince words. I find this type of position and this type of orientation, in favor of secrecy and against transparency, to be nothing less than shameful. Who does secrecy and darkness help other than the criminal element within the RIPE region? Some of you may still remember the discussion which I engaged in here, on and around December 3rd. For those that do not, the above link may be helpful in refreshing your memories. At that time the subject at hand was the availability, or lack thereof, of access to historical RIPE records, in particular (a) access to records that have since been purged from the data base and also (b) access to the historical versions of various ostensibly "privileged" record types, specifically PERSON, ROLE, and MNTNER records. As noted above, to this day I have never seen an answer to the basic question that I had asked, back on December 3rd about access to either or both of these two broad categories of historical data, and more specifically, who, if anyone, decided or approved, unilaterally or otherwise, the notion that either of these two broad categories of historical data should be made unavailable. Thus, I ask yet again, who made these decisions to hide what was at one time open and public WHOIS data? I certainly do not wish to draw any improper or unjustified inference from the lack of response on this key point, but it quite certainly does seem to be the case, from where I am sitting, that nobody much wants to talk about how these decisions were made, let alone who made them. So, once again: Who exactly decided that these two categories of historical WHOIS records should be unavailable? Was this a decision of the membership and/or the community? Were these decision points / policy points debated openly and fairly, taking into account what may perhaps be multiple divergent views on the matter? Or did certain people in positions of power just make these decisions entirely unilaterally and without ever consulting anyone? I look forward to some clarity here as regards to how these decisions were made and who made them. I hope that others on this list, even if you may disagree with my personal preference for total openness and transparency of the data base, will at least join me in hoping that all -decisions- relating to data base access should at least be made in the clear light of day, and in an open and transparent manner. Regards, rfg P.S. I remind everyone that during the discussion back in early December it was noted that a relevant policy proposal had already been lingering in a state of suspended animation for some years already. Perhaps someone can help me out here. I have been searching for the reference to the specific (still pending?) policy proposal in question but I can't seem to find it now. </div> </div> </body> </html>