Re: [dp-tf] Quadlogy of person proposals

[Leo Vegoda <]

On 15 Jun 2007, at 4:37pm, Denis Walker wrote:

[...]

> > > accountability is also important. Governments and LEAs want to know
> > > "who" is responsible for Internet resources.
> > I agree.
> >
> > > A faceless role object will
> > > not be good enough.
> > I doubt person objects would be, either. That's what organisation
> > objects, do.
> The "who" is probably the enduser. This is often a customer of an ISP.
> They will not have an organisation object.
If they're a domestic user with a /32 then there's no need to  
register their assignment and the police have to ask the ISP for  
details. If they are a small business with a small assignment of /29  
or shorter then a role object with the full business name and  
possibly a postal address for the business premises will give enough  
information. I don't understand what value is added by asking a  
person to put their name and personal contact information in the  
database in such a situation.

> If we drop person objects,
> the full picture is split over many databases. An LEA has to go to the
> RIPE Database with a list of IP addresses. Find the organisations,  
> then
> go to the individual organisations to find the "who" from their  
> customer
> databases.
I'm suggesting that personal identifying information is probably not  
necessary for most small network operators. I'm not suggesting that  
no contact information should be provided at all.

However, I really think that this discussion is premature and should  
only be addressed once we have identified the database's purpose(s).

Regards,

--
Leo Vegoda
IANA Numbers Liaison