<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=us-ascii"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><br><div><div>On Nov 15, 2012, at 9:05 PM, Florian Weimer <<a href="mailto:fw@deneb.enyo.de">fw@deneb.enyo.de</a>> wrote:</div><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><font color="#000000">...</font></blockquote><br>Doesn't this invite mingling of allegedly privacy-relevant data and<br>abuse contact information?<br></blockquote></div><br><div>Hello Florian,</div><div><br></div><div>One of the reasons that it is only tied to the "role" object and not the "person" object is to avoid those issues. A role object is not designed to hold personal information, it is a representation of a unit in an organisation. The "abuse-mailbox:" attribute is also supposed to represent the generic email address of the contact point for the abuse handling entity within an organisation, not a real person. We will place clarifying notifications about this when users enter the data.</div><div><br></div><div>None of the objects in the chain, "inetnum/inet6num/aut-num", "organisation" and "role" are provisioned as, or designed to be private data holders.</div><div><br></div><div>Thank you for your comment,</div><div>Kaveh.</div><div><br></div><div>---</div><div>Kaveh Ranjbar,<br>RIPE NCC Database Group Manager</div></body></html>