Hi Erik On Tue, 13 Feb 2024 at 16:56, Erik Bais <[email protected]> wrote: > > Dear Denis, > > > > Thank you for your long email. > > This policy in particular is quite clear and although it proposes on how to > change/register assignments in the database, it doesn’t talk about a complete > database redesign or overhaul. > > If you like to create a full TF or alike to have a discussion about the state > of the DB, please do so in the correct WG for it. ( please read this as . . > . not in AP-WG ) >
You are right that such a discussion is better suited to the DB-WG. However I will make one last point here. The boundaries of WG topics are not black and white. There is often overlap between WGs. Throughout this discussion, the fact that the database is such a difficult tool to use and requires considerable manual effort on the part of LIRs to maintain the registration data within, has been used as justification for changing the registration requirements. When we clearly don't understand the reasoning behind the registration requirements we have today, I still argue it is wrong to change registration requirements just for the convenience of making a historic tool easier to use. The correct approach is to fix the tool. cheers denis > So, yes we’ve read your email and we will note your objection. > > Regards, > > Erik Bais > > on behalf of the Co-Chair collective of the AP-WG. > > > > From: address-policy-wg <[email protected]> on behalf of > denis walker <[email protected]> > Date: Saturday, 10 February 2024 at 09:10 > To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > Cc: Tore Anderson <[email protected]>, Jan Ingvoldstad <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2023-04 Review Phase (Add AGGREGATED-BY-LIR > status for IPv4 PA assignments) > > > > Colleagues > > I am back!! Thanks to those who agreed I should never have been away. I am > not going to focus on that for now. I do have a lot to say around that issue. > But that is for another day, on another mailing list. I won't discuss it here > and I will wait until we conclude the discussion on this proposal. I want > people to focus on the message rather than the messenger. > > There hasn't been much conversation while I have been away, but still several > significant points that seemed to have been missed by most observers. I have > answered all points raised by several people in this single email. In these > days of uncertainty, who knows how long any of us will be around. So it is > more of an article than an email. But I do end with a positive recommendation. > > Let's start with a comment by Leo: > "We encourage everyone to focus comments on the proposal and its potential > impact. Do not comment on individuals, their characteristics, or motivations." > The co-chairs have no authority to determine what constitutes part of this > discussion. If individuals use tactics that may confuse the community or > repeatedly make comments that are not true, they make themselves part of the > discussion. The co-chairs have no right to try to prevent these issues from > being highlighted and discussed. People need to understand that personal > criticism is not a personal attack, even if it is strong criticism. When an > individual repeatedly says something that is not true, to highlight this > issue and ask them why they keep saying this is not a personal attack. > Criticism is part of life, especially in business. Throughout this discussion > there has been lots of criticism thrown at me. My characteristics have been > heavily criticised and commented on. Even who I speak for has been > questioned. No one has questioned if an employee speaks on behalf of their > employer. My motivations have also been questioned. It was suggested that I > should not talk about the RIPE Database on the Address Policy WG. Even though > the old design and technology of the database is one of the key elements used > to support the need for aggregation. So much criticism aimed at me and yet > the co-chairs saw no reason to intervene. They only intervene when I > criticise someone. > > Then there is motivation. Is it questionable? A lot of the discussion on > policy is political, commercial and self interest based. In these contexts I > believe it is acceptable to question motivation. The co-chairs never asked > what I meant by what I said. Of course the proposal is about aggregation. > It's in the title and the text. But it is about a lot more than that. There > are two main aspects to this proposal. An inconsequential, minor feature > change that people may or may not use. And a major change to the handling of > End User details, which people also may or may not take advantage of. The two > aspects combined can make a massive change to the available information in > the RIPE Database. But the proposal did not even mention the change to End > User details. Is it important? Well after I pointed it out, some people who > had said "+1 I agree with this proposal" changed their mind and withdrew > their support. So for them it was highly relevant. There are sections in the > proposal template for supporting and opposing issues relating to the > proposal. Depending on your point of view this major change should have been > listed in one of those sections. But it wasn't. So did the proposers fully > understand the implications of this change or not? I must be allowed to ask > that question as part of this discussion. If they did understand it, why did > they not mention it? Did they overlook it, or was there some other reason? > Again I have to be able to ask these questions. This is all about motivation. > To ask these questions and understand what happened is not a personal attack. > It is a reasonable line of inquiry. > > Enough about the messenger, let's get back to the message. > > ------------------------ > > On Mon, 18 Dec 2023 at 16:49, Edwin Verheul via address-policy-wg > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > I support this proposal. > > > > Since this policy introduces convenience for LIR by aligning ipv4 object > > policy to the ipv6 policy, unclear usage of the admin contact should not > > prevent this improvement in policy. > > This pretty much sums up a lot of people's view of this proposal. It is > 'convenient' for the operators. Who cares if it is the right thing to do or > not, it is convenient. It doesn't align v4 and v6, there are significant > differences in the defined aggregations. Never mind if we don't understand > what the data means, let's just change it anyway as it is convenient. > > Maybe a few of you should watch John Curran's keynote speech at NANOG on > internet governance: > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U1Ip39Qv-Zk > > He talks about phases of the internet and how we are now moving from the > 'commercial' internet to the 'public' internet. With this public internet, > civil society has/wants a much bigger say in how things work. Organisations > that represent civil society and civil order are more concerned about how > things work. Politicians are concerned about what their voters think. Do you > think civil society cares about operator convenience? They are more likely to > think 'it's your job, do it. That's what we pay you for'. I think civil > society will be more interested in knowing who is spamming them or attacking > their network and can the police catch them, rather than operator convenience. > > Now let's think a bit more about what this data means and how to interpret it. > > ------------------------ > > On Fri, 12 Jan 2024 at 08:56, Alex Le Heux <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > During the discussion about AGGREGATED-BY-LIR status for IPv4 PA > > assignments the argument has been raised that this proposal would > > substantially change the registration requirements for end-user assignments > > in the RIPE DB and the discussion has been going around in circles ever > > since. > > > > We would like to point out the following: > > > > From the RIPE NCC Impact Analysis: > > > > Acceptance of this proposal will not change the fact that the RIPE NCC > > cannot enforce which contact details members add to their IPv4 PA > > assignments in the RIPE Database; this will remain their decision. > > > > This is completely out of context. I have asked the RIPE NCC legal team to > clarify what this means but I guess by their silence they declined. To me > this sentence says the member can choose to enter the details of Contact A or > Contact B and choose what the details are. Which one (A or B) and the details > (email or phone) they enter will be their decision. The RIPE NCC cannot > enforce if they enter A or B or email or phone. WHO these contacts represent > is a matter of policy. The current policy says they MUST be representatives > of the End User. That can be enforced by the RIPE NCC, but they choose not to > enforce it. > > > > > As well as: > > > > It is fact that the RIPE NCC has interpreted the current policy to not > > require a PA Assignment in the RIPE DB to include the actual name and email > > address of the end-user since at leas the late 1990s. Registering a PA > > Assignment with something like "CUSTOMER-1234" and an email address > > pointing to the LIR has been acceptable for all this time. > > > > This is completely false. I know Alex well and will give him the benefit of > the doubt that he has not picked up on the detail here. He signed this email > 'for the Address Policy WG co-chairs'. A lot was said about who I speak for, > so I assume Alex was speaking 'for' all the chairs. I was told that signing > as 'co-chair DB-WG' gives what I say more weight and has more influence on > the community. The same must apply when the co-chairs of this WG collectively > sign an email. The community will assume that statement carries more validity. > > Let's look at the detail. Address policy from the early 1990s has made it > clear that assignments must include contact details of the End User. But > ripe-288, 28 Oct 2003 is particularly interesting. The authors of this > version of the address policy were: > Mirjam Kühne, Paul Rendek, Sabrina Wilmot, Leo Vegoda > At that time they were all current or former NCC staff. Leo was the > operations manager of the RIPE NCC Registration Services (RS). Paul was the > senior manager responsible for RS. In this version, these authors added the > exact wording that we have today: > "When an End User has a network using public address space this must be > registered separately with the contact details of the End User. Where the End > User is an individual rather than an organisation, the contact information of > the service provider may be substituted for the End User's." > The wording was very different before this. The document was restructured and > the wording changed. So they must have thought about what this meant. I > cannot believe that when these words were added to the policy by the RS > manager and RS senior manager they were not enforced by RS. Maybe Leo can > give some background to this. > > Nothing in this industry changes quickly. So if these newly worded > requirements were enforced just 20 years ago, they must have been enforced > for at least 5 to 10 years. That means the RIPE NCC's interpretation of this > wording, written by the RS manager, has only changed in the last 5 to 10 > years. I have been told by some former members of RS that they stopped > enforcing these requirements at runout of IPv4. They told me that when they > had no more address space to allocate, they had no power to enforce these > rules. So they simply stopped enforcing them. This paints a very different > picture. We are not changing policy to match a common practice. We are > dropping policy because it is difficult to enforce, regardless of the reasons > why the policy was introduced. > > It is also interesting that, no matter how many times you read something, you > don't always see what it says. A lot has been said about replacing the > admin-c and tech-c contacts in an assignment with the contacts of the LIR. It > has been said that the RIPE NCC now considers this acceptable. But look at > what the current policy actually says: > "Where the End User is an individual rather than an organisation, the contact > information of the service provider may be substituted for the End User's." > So this substitution is only allowed by policy where the End User is an > individual. You cannot do it for all End Users. This actually makes sense to > me. If I want to contact the LIR's tech or admin contacts, they are already > available in the RIPE Database in the allocation object. Why duplicate the > data in the assignment. The policy says the assignment must have the End > User's contacts. So that is another misinterpretation of the current policy. > > > > > > > In its impact analysis the RIPE NCC has indicated that this proposal does > > not change this interpretation. > > > > It should therefore be clear that 2023-04 does not in fact change anything > > regarding how end-user details will actually be registered in PA > > Assignments. > > Interesting choice of words. It may not change how some End User details > 'will' actually be registered, but it changes how they 'should' be registered > enormously. > > > > > However, is has been argued that this interpretation is wrong and that PA > > Assignments in the RIPE DB must include the actual end-user details. And > > even though this is out of scope for the 2023-04 discussion, it is still > > something that is worth resolving. As changing this interpretation would be > > a major departure of many years of accepted practice and potentially > > involve updating thousands of RIPE DB objects, we feel this discussion > > would be best served by an independent policy proposal that clarifies the > > issue and would like to invite the working group to enter one. > > > > I agree this needs further clarification. But you can't write a policy > proposal on something you don't understand. We don't know what much of the > data means now or in the past, or why we have these rules, or what we need > now. Until we have the business requirements for the RIPE Database as a > public registry any such policy proposal, including this one, is just a > dangerous stab in the dark. > > > Kind regards, > > > > Alex Le Heux, for the Address Policy WG co-chairs > > It is interesting that this email was signed 'for' all the co-chairs of this > WG. How can the co-chairs approve this policy proposal (2023-04) while > accepting that another proposal is needed to clarify if the RIPE Database > must include the actual End User contact details? Are they going to approve a > policy proposal that potentially removes this End User detail requirement and > then consider a policy proposal that would require them to put this detail > back into the RIPE Database? > > > ------------------------ > > On Thu, 11 Jan 2024 at 09:40, Tore Anderson <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Hello Denis, > > > > On 11/01/24 01:40, denis walker wrote: > > > So personal data does not always need consent of the data > > > subject. But you only ever refer to (a) consent. > > > > There are indeed other possible lawful bases than consent, and this fact > > is precisely why I wrote (emphasis added): > > > > «Publishing this information requires *a* lawful basis, *e.g.*, consent.» > > > > Consent is however the only lawful basis singled out by the RIPE NCC in > > the RIPE Database Terms and Conditions and in the 2023-04 Impact > > Analysis, so it seems reasonable to assume that some LIRs will seek consent. > > I wrote the T&C before GDPR was in place. That's why it doesn't refer to any > of the other lawful options. I questioned the IA but the legal team chose not > to respond. > > > > > Therefore we need to examine what that actually means in practice. You > > sum it up quite accurately below: > > > > > > > If we take the latest revelation in the IA on 2023-04, ALL PII needs > > > consent, this has HUGE implications for the RIPE NCC and RIPE policy > > > generally. We MUST have a good understanding of the legal basis for > > > entering PII into the RIPE Database. Consent cannot be conditional. So > > > if a resource holder who is a natural person withdraws their consent > > > to have their PII in the database, it MUST be removed. That may leave > > > an allocation and organisation with no identity or contacts. That > > > would be a policy violation. BUT the resource cannot be reclaimed as > > > that would have made the consent conditional. Also we have an abuse > > > policy that requires all resources to have an abuse contact. If that > > > contact is a natural person and they withdraw their consent their > > > details must be deleted. Again that creates a policy violation. But > > > the resource cannot be reclaimed again as that would have made the > > > contact details consent conditional. > > > > Your conclusion that this situation results in a policy violation, is > > however entirely contingent on your interpretation of the current policy > > as mandating the publication of the End User's (non-delegated) contact > > information. > > You did not read what I wrote. I was talking about LIR contacts in allocation > objects. If that is PII (and a lot of it is) the subjects can now ask for it > to be removed. That may leave allocation objects with no LIR contacts. That > is syntactically not possible in the RIPE Database. > > > > > Under the RIPE NCC's interpretation of the current policy, on the other > > hand, this situation is entirely unproblematic. Under their > > interpretation, the LIR has, quote, «freedom to take over the > > responsibility as the point of contact for their End User». No PII, no > > GDPR, no problem. > > But if the LIR has NO contacts because they have asked for their details to > be removed then you can't replace the End User contacts with non-existent LIR > contacts. You and the legal team have started a chain reaction here by > declaring that ALL contacts in the RIPE Database are there by consent. The > RIPE NCC, as joint data controller for the RIPE Database, now has joint > responsibility, and I presume therefore joint liability, for 2 million people > having given their consent to their details being added into a PERSON object > in the database. > > > > > https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/2023-November/013892.html > > > > > Again you have selected just one example that can support your > > > argument, Farmer Fred. I could have used KPN or Apple Inc as an > > > example which would negate your argument. > > > > KPN or Apple would not be relevant examples, as they (presumably) would > > use non-personal NOC roles which are not PII, and thus out of scope of > > the GDPR. > > The RIPE NCC is a corporate body and yet it has many PERSON objects in the > database relating to individual staff members as contacts for their resources. > > > ------------------------ > > On Thu, 11 Jan 2024 at 09:45, Tore Anderson <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Hi Denis, > > > > On 11/01/24 03:20, denis walker wrote: > > > On Wed, 10 Jan 2024 at 13:02, Tore Anderson <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> > > >> On 10/01/24 11:25, Jan Ingvoldstad wrote: > > >>> Or you could take the other stance and stop publishing *any* contact > > >>> details regarding an object, because you cannot know whether the > > >>> information is personal data or not. > > >> Exactly. LIRs may (but are not required to) chose this approach already > > >> *today*. This is a common and long-standing practice which the RIPE NCC > > >> has repeatedly clarified as compliant with today's policy. > > > This is one of your biggest false statements. The ONLY person > > > repeatedly saying this is YOU. Let's do a fact check here. > > > > Yes, let us indeed do a fact check: > > > > Your fact checking is not very accurate. > > > Exhibit 1: > > https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/2023-September/013856.html > > > > This is the one time the RIPE NCC made this argument, which I have disputed. > > > Exhibit 2: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2023-04 > > (specifically the «counter-argument», which the RIPE NCC Policy Officer > > confirmed to the proposers and the WG chairs as correctly representing > > the RIPE NCC's interpretation) > > > > This 'counter argument' is your argument and is completely false. > > > Exhibit 3: > > https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2023-04#impact-analysis > > > > I have explained this above. This is the argument about LIRs adding Contact A > or Contact B or email or phone. THAT is their decision. Who these contacts > represent is set in the current policy and is not the LIR's choice. > > > Exhibit 4: > > https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/2023-November/013892.html > > > > All the talk about maintainers, descr attributes, DB T&C and documentation > has nothing to do with address policy. All they say here is that this > proposal won't influence how the RIPE NCC currently carries out ARCs. They > are doing it wrong now and will continue to do it wrong. > > > Four repetitions so far, all saying the same thing. How many more do you > > need? > > > > One statement and no repetitions. They all say something different, which > most people can clearly see. > > > > > >> As the RIPE NCC writes in the Impact Analysis (emphasis added): > > >> > > >> «Acceptance of this proposal **will not change** the fact that the > > >> RIPE NCC cannot enforce which contact details members add to their IPv4 > > >> PA assignments in the RIPE Database; this **will remain** their > > >> decision.» > > >> > > Same repetitive argument again and again. Yes it IS the LIR's decision to > enter Contact A or Contact B or email or phone. It is the POLICY that > determines who those contacts represent. How many more times are we going to > have this same discussion? (Which the legal team will not clarify.) > > > >> So, once again: which End User contact details LIRs publish (if any) is > > >> their decision today, and it will be continue to be their decision if > > >> 2023-04 passes. > > > YES AGAIN the LIR can always choose between Contact A and Contact B, email or > phone. They cannot choose to not enter any End User contact details. > > > > >> Hence, 2023-04 does not effect any change in this regard. > > But as everyone else can see, this makes a huge change. > > > > This really does make me cry. The wording in the IA is poor. You have > > > applied an interpretation to this which I do not believe is what was > > > meant. Then the RIPE NCC legal team has remained silent. So I am > > > asking the RIPE NCC legal team to clearly explain what they meant by > > > this wording. > > > > The explanation you request was posted two days after the Impact > > Analysis was: > > > > https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/2023-November/013892.html > > > > «LIRs are free to choose how to provide services and to who, this > > includes their freedom to take over the responsibility as the point of > > contact for their End User as well as having their maintainer in the > > IPv4 PA assignments they register.» > > > > This explanation aligns perfectly with our interpretation of the > > statement in the Impact Analysis. > > > > Wrong again. Yes the LIR is free to take over responsibility for technical > matters. You can always find their contact details in the allocation object. > So the public, civil society, LEAs, and other LIRs can choose who they want > to contact...the LIR or the End User. Between the allocation and assignment > objects you have all the contact details you need...according to current > policy. > > The LIR does NOT have the freedom, according to current policy, to replace > the admin-c and tech-c contacts in the assignment object with their own > contact details in all situations. Again the current policy wording is clear > and not interpretable: > "Where the End User is an individual rather than an organisation, the contact > information of the service provider may be substituted for the End User's." > So you can ONLY replace the assignment contacts with those of the LIR IF the > End User is an individual. Again this is simple, plain English, originally > written by Leo and Mirjam. > > > >> Given that, it is hard to see how we could possibly amend the proposal > > >> to change this particular point to an even lesser extent than what is > > >> already the case? > > > Let me help you. Do NOT remove a sentence that has nothing to do with > > > the stated goal of the proposal to aggregate assignments and that you > > > claim does not change anything. > > > > This sentence also has a lot to do with the stated goal of aggregating > > assignments, because it mandates that assignments must be «registered > > separately». That is clearly incompatible with aggregation. > > > > **** Finally, FINALLY you have admitted that this change that is not a change > and that changes nothing does actually change something. **** > It changes the registration requirements for assignments, which I have been > saying all along and which you have been denying for months. > > ------------------------ > > On Thu, 11 Jan 2024 at 10:19, Jan Ingvoldstad <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, Jan 11, 2024 at 9:45AM Tore Anderson <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> If our ulterior goal was to remove the End User contacts from our own > >> assignments we can just go ahead and do so, right now. The RIPE NCC is > >> already on the record saying that's totally OK, and we would be > >> following in the footsteps of many other LIRs who have already done so. > > > While you seem to argue that the RIPE NCC is both omniscient and > > omnicompetent, I do not think it is that easy. > > > > I simply think that the RIPE NCC and you are mistaken. > > > > After talking to former members of RS I am beginning to think that the RIPE > NCC is not mistaken. They know exactly what the current policy says and they > know what it means. After all, it was written by former RS managers. BUT they > don't believe they have any power to enforce it. This is why they quietly > ignore what the policy says. I'll say more about that in my conclusion at the > end of this email. > > > Continously appealing to RIPE NCC as the authority of policy and policy > > interpretation is not a good thing. > > > > It undermines the community drive behind policies. > > > > If this is where we are going, it seems that we would be just as well off > > by letting EU politicians run the show. > > > > If you have watched John Curran's keynote speech at NANOG and think about the > way a handful of operators are pushing this proposal through, the EU > politicians WILL be running the show in the near future. > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U1Ip39Qv-Zk > > > > -- > > Jan > > ------------------------ > > On Thu, 11 Jan 2024 at 13:11, Tore Anderson <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On 11/01/24 10:19, Jan Ingvoldstad wrote: > > > > > > Continously appealing to RIPE NCC as the authority of policy and > > > policy interpretation is not a good thing. > > > > The RIPE NCC is the secretariat of the RIPE Community and is delegated > > the task of implementing and enforcing the RIPE Community policies, as > > well as to providing training to the LIRs on how to operationalise said > > policies. If that is not an authority worth paying attention to, I do > > not know what is. > > > > Exactly, the RIPE NCC is the secretariat, not the policy decision maker. They > are supposed to enforce community derived policy. IF they don't think they > have the powers to enforce a policy they should raise that issue with the > community and seek guidance. They should not just quietly ignore the policy, > or part of it. > > > After all, any LIR which prefers the RIPE NCC interpretation of the > > policy in this regard is may simply adhere to it and act accordingly, > > and this is commonly done today. Thus the RIPE NCC's interpretation of > > the policy – mistaken or not – ends up becoming the (de facto) way the > > policy is implemented anyway. > > > > If a policy has unintentional interpretations it is badly written. LIRs > should not be in a position to choose between a community view and the RIPE > NCC's view of a policy. A RIPE NCC interpretation of a policy that conflicts > with a community view should not become a de facto implementation. If such a > situation arises the conflict must be resolved. > > ------------------------ > > On Thu, 11 Jan 2024 at 14:11, Tore Anderson <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Hi Jan, > > > > On 11/01/24 13:27, Jan Ingvoldstad wrote: > > > On Thu, Jan 11, 2024 at 1:11PM Tore Anderson <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > After all, any LIR which prefers the RIPE NCC interpretation of the > > > policy in this regard is may simply adhere to it and act accordingly, > > > and this is commonly done today. Thus the RIPE NCC's > > > interpretation of > > > the policy – mistaken or not – ends up becoming the (de facto) way > > > the > > > policy is implemented anyway. > > > > > > This statement basically renders the point of a policy working group moot. > > > > I totally agree. > > > Not at all. Any working group member who is of the opinion that the RIPE > > NCC is interpreting a RIPE Community policy incorrectly, is free to at > > any point submit a policy proposal that clarifies the allegedly > > misinterpreted policy text with the aim to make the RIPE NCC change its > > procedures accordingly. > > > > A policy proposal would only be needed if the policy is so badly written it > needs clarity. When the policy is clear and simple, but the RIPE NCC is > either misinterpreting it or doesn't believe it has the power to enforce it, > we don't need a policy change. We need an interpretation change. > > > The RIPE NCC's Impact Analysis will then reveal whether or not the > > proposed new policy text does attain its goal and that the RIPE NCC will > > change its procedures as desired, should the proposal pass. > > > > Finally, the proposal will need to reach (rough) consensus in order to > > confirm that the RIPE Community does indeed concur with the proposer's > > opinion that the old policy was interpreted incorrectly, and that the > > RIPE NCC's procedures ought to change. > > > > You do not write policy proposals to change the RIPE NCC's interpretation of > existing policy. > > > Absent this, the RIPE NCC's operationalisation of the policy will stay > > as-is. > > > > ------------------------ > > On Thu, 11 Jan 2024 at 14:35, Sebastian Graf <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > Dear Tore/Denis: > > > > If we are looking at the Policy Language, then i'm not certain we are > > reading the same things into it. > > Or maybe i missed something. Feel free to point out the corresponding > > section of the policy to me. I'm more than happy to update my views if > > strong evidence is presented. > > As a small LIR ... I may not see all edge cases.... but...... So feel free > > to point out anything important that i may have missed. > > > > Lets look at the actual language in the policy: > > > > > "All assignments and allocations must be registered in the RIPE Database. > > > This is necessary to ensure uniqueness and to support network operations." > > > > The way i read it, this point is filled both with the current state of > > things, and also if we have an aggregated status. Space would still be > > registered. So the question is what kind of data needs to accompany it. > > > > Actually this point is not satisfied by aggregation. When you have all > assignments separately registered, as current policy requires and the > proposers of this policy update have finally agreed is the case, you can see > that each assignment is unique. You cannot assign the same space to two End > Users as you cannot create two assignment objects with the same or > overlapping prefix. With an aggregation object, all you know is that some > part(s) of this aggregated block may be assigned to one or more End Users. > You do not know how much is in use, or even if any of the aggregated space is > currently in use. It does not satisfy the uniqueness condition as you can't > be sure some of the space has not been multiply assigned. > > > So lets look at what needs to be documented: > > > > > "Registration data (range, contact information, status etc.) must be > > > correct at all times (i.e. they have to be maintained)." > > > > I think you are arguing what both of you are considering "contact > > information". It does NOT say we state to put personally identifyable > > information into it. > > > > You are totally correct here. I have never argued for putting PII into the > database. > > > If we read the text literally, then only putting enough information to > > establish a contact (ie: contact information) would theoretically be > > sufficient. > > So theoretically, a "proxy" type of setup for email/postal mail/... could > > be permissiable as long as any communication/... is forwarded to the the > > actual responisble party. > > > > In fact i would argue for most businesses (End-User or ISP) this is already > > the case if they make use of "role" contacts for their admin/noc/abuse/... > > handling. > > > > Also correct. > > > > "Registration data (range, contact information, status etc.) must be > > > correct at all times (i.e. they have to be maintained)." > > > > The other thing that i do not read from the statement is where it asks to > > put "contact information" for the End-User. It simply reads contact > > information (one could theoretically interpret this as "contact information > > for the party that is responsible for managing the space....). > > > > You are missing the infamous lines this proposal wants to delete from the > current policy: > "When an End User has a network using public address space this must be > registered separately with the contact details of the End User. Where the End > User is an individual rather than an organisation, the contact information of > the service provider may be substituted for the End User's." > > > ANYWAY.... > > > > I still do not feel anything of significance would be lost, if something > > could be lost at all. > > I guess you don't accept that the registration details of End Users is > significant. > > >My personal opinion goes the other way.....I suspect, if anything aggregated > >status could potentially lead to more accurate data. Let me explain: With > >the aggregation we gain better understanding of the network usage. PLUS the > >ability to create more specific assignments (under the aggregated). So This > >way, i feel more usable data would be int the database, compared to now. > > > > With an aggregated block all/some/none of the space covered by this block may > be in use by one/many/no End Users. You have no idea about network usage. All > that detail may be lost. > > > This would also be in line with the goals in Section 3.0 - Point 2 > > "Agregation: Distributing IPv4 addresses in an hierarchical manner permits > > the aggregation of routing information.". > > > > Aggregating address space registration details has nothing at all to do with > routing aggregation. > > > If we look at the goal for registration: "Registration: The provision of a > > public registry documenting address space allocations and assignments must > > exist. This is necessary to ensure uniqueness and to provide information > > for Internet troubleshooting at all levels.". > > > > Aggregating assignment data does not guarantee uniqueness, or provide > information for Internet troubleshooting at ALL levels. > > > If we consider the usefulnes of data entered into the ripe-db for this > > purpose, then most useful will be the ISP contact information. Contact > > information for End-Users (could be an ISP as well) would also be useful in > > some cases. Personal Information for "individual" type end users (ie: Fred > > Testuser's DSL Line that comes with a Public IPv4 Address)....to a lesser > > extend. > > > > If we look at Section 3.1 ...it reads "Internet Registries (IRs) have a > > duty of confidentiality to their registrants. Information passed to an IR > > must be securely stored and must not be distributed wider than necessary > > within the IR.". > > > > So i am not certain why you are trying to force more data than actually > > required/useful into the db. And yes in this context i would consider LIR's > > in this to be part of this as some type of "local" IR's. > > > > There is always a balance between privacy and the needs of civil society. It > was decided many years ago that anyone operating a network using public > address space should have contact details available in a public registry. > That is still what the current policy says with wording written by Leo (AP WG > co-chair, former RS manager) and Mirjam (RIPE chair). The original source of > this requirement goes back to address policy written in the 1990s by many > varied authors including Daniel (RIPE NCC founder) and Hans Petter (RIPE NCC > CEO and former AP WG and LIR WG chair). Unfortunately no one is willing to > provide any background information to the current RIPE community about why > these rules were originally imposed. That makes it difficult to discuss if > those original conditions still apply to the current stakeholders of the RIPE > Database, who we also can't easily identify. > > > During the writing of this email, i realised that you (denis/tore) may > > consider the need/usecase for adding a "restricted" flag into the DB, that > > would allow adding information, that is only shown to a select audience > > (ie: law enforcment, ripe staff and Ripe-Members) - wich could be used to > > publish PII data. HOWEVER doing something like that would "extend" the > > existing usecase(s) of the DB and dataentry required - as such this should > > be in a different Policy Proposal/wg-discussion. Feel free to put one > > forward, that we can discuss.... > > > > I did consider this option when I put forward my RIPE Database Privacy policy > proposal some time ago. The idea of multi level access was not very popular. > > ------------------------ > > On Fri, 12 Jan 2024 at 08:12, Tore Anderson <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Good morning Jan, > > > > On 12/01/24 07:25, Jan Ingvoldstad wrote: > > > I also do not understand what makes it so hard to say that: "Yes, the > > > current policy does state something else than NCC's interpretation of > > > it does, (…) > > > > We do not make statements that we do not believe to be true. > > > > In our opinion, the RIPE NCC implements current policy correctly. > > > > How can you keep saying this when everyone knows it is not true. Regardless > of whether or not you support the way the RIPE NCC currently implements the > policy, it is NOT what the policy says. We have been over this so many times. > The policy is so clear in simple, plain English. For whatever reason, the way > the RIPE NCC implements the policy today is NOT what the current policy so > clearly says, as written by a co-chair of this WG. > > You even admitted it yourself in an earlier email (listed above) where you > said (and these are YOUR words): > > > After all, any LIR which prefers the RIPE NCC interpretation of the > > policy in this regard is may simply adhere to it and act accordingly, > > and this is commonly done today. Thus the RIPE NCC's interpretation of > > the policy – mistaken or not – ends up becoming the (de facto) way the > > policy is implemented anyway. > > ------------------------ > > On Fri, 12 Jan 2024 at 08:57, Sebastian Graf <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > Dear Jan! > > > > As mentioned in my previous e-mail: Would you please post the section of > > the policy that you belive has the NCC's interpretation differ from the > > actual wording/language used? > > > > Because i have yet to find a section that states explicitly what is > > considered valid vs invalid contact information (other than being out of > > date or information that does not provide a contact to the user in a > > timely manner). Or a section that restricts what kind of data is > > permissable for "contact information". > > > > It is not a question of what is (in)valid contact information. It is about > who the contact details refer to. End User or LIR. > > ------------------------ > > On Fri, 12 Jan 2024 at 09:28, Sebastian Graf <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > Dear Jan! > > > > Thank you for your reply. But you have not answerred my question. > > > > We are all clear/well aware on the fact that the policy states > > (paraphrasing here: resources need to be registered and the registions need > > to have contact information). > > > > We are looking for the DEFINITION of "contact details of the End User.". > > This is not directly defined (as far as i can tell) and is therefore open > > for interpretation. > > > > Unless i missed something? > > > > Yes you have missed something. Take your sentence above "contact details of > the End User". This can be split into two parts: > "contact details" > "of the End User." > You are right, there is no definition of "contact details". So it doesn't > matter if this is email, phone, fax, postal address or if it is in a role or > person object or if it is corporate or personal data. Much of this does > matter when it comes to privacy concerns, but that is another discussion. > What we are primarily discussing here is the other part "of the End User." So > the contact details don't matter for this discussion as long as they > collectively refer to the End User. And this reference is not open to any > interpretation according to the current policy. > > ------------------------ > > On Fri, 12 Jan 2024 at 10:35, Sebastian Graf <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > Dear Jan! > > > > You and Denis are arguing that registration/user data needs to include > > certain (sometimes sensitive details (ie: PII)) that need to be put in the > > database. Your Argument is that this is a policy requirement. > > > > That is NOT what we are arguing. There is no policy requirement regarding the > nature of the contact details. The policy states who the contact details > should refer to, ie End User or LIR, for example. > > > When I tried to get both of you to spell out what this "user data"/"contact > > information" is exactly and where that is defined - We do not get a clear > > answer. > > > > Because it is not what we are arguing and it is not defined anywhere. > > > I have read every single of denis replies/comments. > > > > When asked, neither of you cannot reference a policy section that actually > > spells out what is considered "contact details". > > > > Because the policy doesn't define this and it is not relevant to this > discussion. > > > According to your own e-mail - your opinion is based on a software > > interface/implementation (ripe-db). This interface itself is an > > interpretation of what the policy could mean. > > The Interface of the DB also does not specify what kind of Information > > (regular address, proxy address,...) needs to be inserted. Just that some > > fields need to be filled out (and its open to interpret what goes into them > > to a certain extent - wich is the point of this discussion). > > > > Sorry but you have missed the point again. The discussion has nothing to do > with RIPE Database interfaces, forms or attribute contents. It is about WHO > these details refer to. > > > The relationship is policy -to- database. Not Database -to- Policy. > > > > And yet, we have no document or reference that defines what kind of contact > > information (direct only, or indirect via proxy/masking/....) is > > permissable. > > Correct, and it is not relevant. > > > Just that it needs to be maintained (meaning "if it works" -> OK). > > All data in the RIPE Database should be maintained and kept up to date. > > > In my previous e-mail i did argue that in some scenarios working > > witout"proxy" data is impossible (think: Role/NOC Contacts). > > > > ROLE or PERSON object is also irrelevant to this discussion. > > > I have also read your reference > > https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-705 . It defines an abuse inbox > > is mandatory for certain objects. And that it has to be an email address. - > > Nothing else. > > Also irrelevant to this discussion. > > ------------------------ > > So where does all this leave us? During this discussion we have established > that: > > -We do not understand what many elements of data in the RIPE Database mean. > > -There are some historical definitions in old documents. These definitions > have never been updated, so technically they are the only current definition > available. But some of these definitions do not map exactly into the modern > world. > > -Some registration requirements were written in the early 1990s. Some were > re-written in 2003. Much of this was written by people who still have a high > profile in the RIPE community or RIPE NCC today. > > -We do not know what the reasoning was for why these requirements were > introduced. > > -We do not know who the major stakeholders are who use the data in the RIPE > Database or what information they want and need or what they use it for. > > -We have no business requirements for the RIPE Database as a public registry. > > -We do not know what data needs to be registered in the RIPE Database or what > information it needs to serve to who for what purpose. > > -An unknown amount of assignment data in the RIPE Database does not comply > with current address policy. > > -The RIPE NCC does not enforce the current address policy. This may be > because the RIPE NCC does not believe they have the power to enforce current > policy. > > -Some members have made it clear they will not enter any of their customer's > details into a public registry no matter what policy says for commercial > sensitivity reasons. While there are interpretations of current policy they > may be considered in violation of policy. So there are other reasons why some > people may want to push through this change in End User registration. > > -We do not know what the potential consequences may be for some stakeholders > by making this change. > > So given all these unknowns, should we go ahead and make this change? It > seems like this has been a long and intense discussion. Some people may think > we have had sufficient input from the community to be able to make a decision > on consensus. But as is often the case, statistics beat perception. So let's > look at some numbers. Excluding the chairs, proposers and RIPE NCC staff > there have been 22 people who commented on this discussion over the last 6 > months. Of these 6 people only made 1 comment and another 6 made 2 comments. > Then 8 people made 3 to 6 comments. One person made 12 and one made 24 > comments. Also 5 people made up the '+1' brigade. These numbers cover both > supporters and objectors. This is quite typical of policy discussion. Many of > the 'regular' vocal community members who are involved in almost all policy > discussions are included in these numbers. So we are looking at a very small > number of people who actually support this proposal. Given all the unknowns > we have identified during this discussion and the very small number of > supporters, should we still approve this proposal? Bear in mind also that the > proposal is basically about adding an inconsequential, minor, optional > feature change for the convenience of some operators. It also makes a huge > change to the registration requirements of End User assignments which will > have an unknown impact on the public registry and some major stakeholders. > > Now let's add in some other factors. I really do recommend that you all watch > John Curran's keynote speech to NANOG about internet governance. > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U1Ip39Qv-Zk > > He makes some very interesting points that are highly relevant to this > discussion. He talks about 3 phases of the internet. The first one was the > early development, done largely by universities and other early adopters of > the technology, but largely paid for by governments. Then we went into the > commercial phase that covers much of the last 20 years or so. But now we are > moving into a public phase where civil society is more knowledgeable and is > much more heavily involved. During the commercial phase the tech community > could pretty much do what they wanted. If questioned by any parts of civil > society or regulators they could just fob them off with No No No No... In the > new public phase politicians, regulators, organisations involved in public > order are much more aware of the interest by civil society (people who vote > in elections). The public is aware of the dangers of the internet as well as > the benefits. Politicians and regulators must be seen to be in control. So > the days of the tech community saying No No No No to them are over. Now it > must be at least No No No Maybe. The Maybe allows the tech community to write > something down that they can live with, that politicians can refer to in > regulations and everyone is happy. > > So how does this relate to 2023-04? We have a public registry that we built > and maintain. But there are so many things we don't understand now in the > 2020s. We all know what the registry was. My research has reminded you of > some of the early details. But what is it now and what should it be tomorrow? > We don't have answers to these questions. In the face of all these unknowns > we want to add an inconsequential feature that could have a massive impact in > other areas that we don't fully understand. We know LEAs have serious > concerns. But we have just brushed them aside. This very small group of > operators that took part in this discussion have prioritised their own > convenience over anything else. They have turned that Maybe back into a No. > If you approve this proposal with all these unknowns I think you will find > that train full of regulators that is rumbling down the line, heading > straight for you, will pick up speed. Think of the LEAs sitting in a room > behind two doors. One of those doors opens up to the tech community. You are > about to slam that door in their face. The other door opens up to the > politicians. We still have the option to invite them into our room and talk > seriously with them about their needs. Once you slam that door shut, they > will walk through the other door and you lose control. > > Yes I know I am a drama queen. But I am trying to illustrate to you that > actions have consequences. Today's consequences may be very different to > those of yesterday in a similar situation. Nothing stays the same forever. So > is it worth risking the wrath of the politicians for what has been described > as a minor, optional feature change that some will find convenient? > > Let me end by suggesting an alternative path. I have said all this before and > been ignored or insulted. But I will say it again anyway. I am used to being > insulted on these lists with no one protecting me. > > 1/ Withdraw this proposal 2023-04 > > 2/ Set up a new Task Force with these primary goals: > > a/ Determine the business requirements for the RIPE Database as a public > registry, looking forwards. > > b/ Identify the major stakeholders for the RIPE Database public registry. > > c/ Identify the needs/wants of these stakeholders. > > d/ Based on the above, determine the registration needs of the public > registry, taking account of privacy concerns. > > 3/ Once we know what we want, design a new data model for the RIPE Database. > > 4/ Slowly move from where we are now to where we want to be. > > Yes I know this is a long term project and yes it will cost money. But the > RIPE Database is so old, with so many things lost in the mists of time, so > many things not applicable to the modern world. If you continue turning your > back on all this, you may find the regulators will tell you what they want in > the registry. That may be far more costly. > > I don't think there is anything more I can say on this issue now. > > cheers > denis > > ======================================================== > DISCLAIMER > Everything I said above is my personal, professional opinion. It is what I > believe to be honest and true to the best of my knowledge. No one in this > industry pays me anything. I have nothing to gain or lose by any decision. I > push for what I believe is for the good of the Internet, in some small way. > Nothing I say is ever intended to be offensive or a personal attack. Even if > I strongly disagree with you or question your motives. Politicians question > each other's motives all the time. RIPE discussion is often as much about > politics and self interest as it is technical. I have a style of writing that > some may not be familiar with, others sometimes use it against me. I also > have OCD. It makes me see the world slightly differently to others. It drives > my mind's obsessive need for detail. I can not change the way I express my > detailed opinions. People may choose how to interpret them. > ======================================================== -- To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or change your subscription options, please visit: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/address-policy-wg
