[arin-discuss] Privacy of Reassignment Information

[Owen DeLong]

I opposed the individual privacy policy, too.  And, before you start
wondering whether I put my money where my mouth is, feel free to look
up OD19-ARIN or 192.159.10.0/24.

Owen


--On April 8, 2006 1:26:23 AM -0400 "Divins, David" <dsd at servervault.com>
wrote:

> 
> All IP Allocations are done based upon trust.  If an ISP just wanted to
> obscure a reassignment they could simply make up a customer. 
> 
> Allowing ISP's to enter into NDA type status for reassignments and
> representing these reassignments as private in public servers should
> provide the registrar with more accurate information-- as that is the
> basis for the reassignment policy.  Additionally, this provides much
> needed privacy for companies that must adhere to ever more restrictive
> privacy laws.  This allows a valid mechanism. 
> 
> Why is a corporate entities right to privacy any less than an individuals
> (when it comes to IP space-- and remember not all companies are public)? 
> 
> Why is there a need to know what company owns a block provided there is a
> valid contact provided? This probably brings the question of how can we
> ensure a valid contact.  Since all assignments are done based on trust,
> there must be some base assumption that for the most part ISP's act
> according to ARIN rules--  I am not aware of any ARIN para-military-esque
> auditing arm that checks ISP corporate accounting against IP assignments
> to see who skirts the rules. 
> 
> Honestly, I would be content to see a policy that allows an ISP to go
> full NDA with ARIN and provide reassignment information to ARIN on a
> private basis.  Under this condition, the ISP would need to maintain
> valid contact (abuse/noc) for all address space it has been assigned and
> not publicly reassigned. 
> 
> I firmly believe that this issue will not be going away. 
> 
> -dsd 
> 
> David Divins 
> Principal Engineer 
> ServerVault Corp. 
> (703) 652-5955 
> 
> _____________________________________________ 
> From:   Owen DeLong [mailto:owen at delong.com] 
> Sent:   Friday, April 07, 2006 11:56 PM 
> To:     Divins, David; ARIN-discuss at arin.net 
> Subject:        Re: [arin-discuss] Privacy of Reassignment Information 
> 
> * PGP Signed by an unknown key: 04/07/2006 at 11:55PM 
> 
> 
> --On April 7, 2006 10:25:11 PM -0400 "Divins, David"
> <dsd at servervault.com> 
> wrote: 
> 
>> All, 
>> 
>> Provided an ISP, or other direct assignment recipient, supplies valid 
>> and responsive (24x7) Abuse, NOC, and other pertinent contact 
>> information, a reassignment should be allowed to remain private. 
>> 
> First, a direct assignment recipient cannot reassign, so, this would 
> not apply to a direct assignment recipient. 
> 
> Second, the policy was abandoned fairly recently due to lack of 
> support by the community and lack of consensus to move forward. 
> 
> IP resources are an element of public trust.  It is common and widespread 
> practice to disclose as a matter of public record possessory interest 
> in public resources.  The public interest in an open and equitable 
> system of resource assignments and allocations overrides ISPs 
> interest in hiding the identities of their customers. 
> 
>> The ability for an ISP to selectively and voluntarily make an assignment 
>> private will still allow ARIN to have accurate reassignment information 
>> as the assignments will be provided to ARIN privately whenever address 
>> utilization must be determined. 
>> 
> ARIN is a stewardship organization.  The IP addresses are no more owned 
> by ARIN than by any recipient organization.  They are administered by 
> ARIN and the ISPs in the public trust.  They are public resources. 
> 
>> The private designation in no way relieves the ISP of its responsibility 
>> to the Internet community.  In fact, a private reassignment expands this 
>> responsibility as the ISP actually must take on the responsibility 
>> providing valid 24x7 point of contact. 
>> 
> The community vehemently opposed adding such a requirement to the
> previous 
> attempt at such a policy. 
> 
>> If an ISP is unable or unwilling to provide a responsive NOC/abuse 
>> contact, then they may not designate any reassignments as private. 
>> 
> How would you propose to prevent ISPs from ignoring this requirement? 
> 
> Owen 
> 
> -- 
> If it wasn't crypto-signed, it probably didn't come from me. 
> 
> * Unknown Key 
> * 0x0FE2AA3D - unknown 



-- 
If it wasn't crypto-signed, it probably didn't come from me.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-discuss/attachments/20060408/ab7b1fe4/attachment.sig>