[ripe-list] Confidentiality, or that lack thereof

Hi,

On Tue, Aug 24, 2021 at 11:26:12AM -0700, Leo Vegoda wrote:
> I have always understood that the confidentiality requirement was
> intended to apply to any business information supplied to justify an
> allocation of resources and not the outcome, which is published in the
> RIPE Database and elsewhere. I understood that the goal was to assure
> the businesses operating networks that chatty staff would not gossip
> about what those businesses planned but had not announced.

Leo has been around about as long as I have - and his understanding of
the reasoning matches mine.

Let me illustrate this a bit: "back in the days", ISPs were given IPv4
allocations based on network deployment *plans*.  Like "we intend to
expand to neighbouring country <x>, cities <a>, <b> and <c>, and
we expect to have <z-1000> customers there by mid next year" - this
sort of information is something I would not like my competitors to
have, and thus I always found it reassuring that the NCC would not
share these strategic details.

The end result ("1.2.0.0/16 allocated to XYZ inc.") is - and needs to
be - public, so some coarse information about growth plans is/was visible,
but not the details.

Gert Doering
        -- LIR contact since too many years
-- 
have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?

SpaceNet AG                      Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael Emmer
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14        Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen                 HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444         USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/ripe-list/attachments/20210824/c9625dbe/attachment.sig>