[dp-tf] Quadlogy of person proposals

On Wed, 13 Jun 2007, Janos Zsako wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> > Just a comment more: don't forget that the core for us is not to have
> > fields to store private data, but, probably, have one_field_more to get
> > the owner authorization to publish them.
> >
> > So, the big problem is that we normally have contacts from our maintainers
> > that aren't owners of all data maintained. The question is who get the
> > responsability to put the "yes" in that field. This is a rule that, I
> > think, we have to build.
>
> Very good point. I think the best approach is to have the responsibilty
> reside with the maintainer. It would be good to have this in the service
> contract (i.e. the service contract should say that by putting a person
> object in the RIPE database, you acknowledge that you did get the approval
> of the person to publish his/her data). This is what we have in the .hu
> registration rules.

in the .ru registration rules we had approximately the same, untill a Pers.data act
was issued about half a year ago. Act states that a person have right
to keep his/her data secret, even if he/she is resonsible for the resourse.
It means that person is not mandatory anymore, a problem of access to the resp. party
arises. I'm afraid, a person object in the RIPE database is very much the same,
like TLD registrar the RIPE NCC may face the necessity to legally prove their right
to openly publish smbd's personal data.


>
> As far as I remember, the GM is now authorized to change the service contract
> in such a way to be mandatory for all members (i.e. we do not have to have
> all members sign again). We should bring this up at the next GM. Of course
> this should be checked with the lawyers too.
>
> Best regards,
> Janos
>
>


With respect,
Larisa Yurkina
---
RIPN Registry center
-----