[ripe-list] Confidentiality, or that lack thereof

(please see below)


On Tue, 24 Aug 2021, Gert Doering wrote:

> 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.

Hi Gert, Leo, All,

This is perfectly understandable.

But i guess the issue is dramatically different -- it's about knowing 
** WHO ** is really the ISP, i.e. which company from which jurisdiction.


Cheers,
Carlos



> 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
>