[ppml] Policy Proposal 2006-1: Residential Customer Privacy

On Tue, 3 Oct 2006, Stacy Taylor wrote:

> If you concur completely, why was this change, that was suggested at
> the meeting in Montreal, not incorporated into the policy for this
> policy cycle?  The community is at risk of running further cycles on
> this policy than necessary.
>
> Would you be amenable to change policy proposal 2006-1 to incorporate
> "at the least, city, state, and non-specific postal code should be
> preserved (5- digit ZIP (US), first 3 characters [I assume a reference
> to Canada would be here]"

No.

> Or do I misunderstand with what you are concurring?

I think you misunderstood -- I concur with J. Backer that publishing
city/state/postal code does not offer a reasonable level of privacy
protection for those in small areas, which tend to be areas of low
population density.

My perception was that most (certainly not all, but most) of the 
opposition to 2006-1 voiced in Montreal was about ARIN's operational 
needs not being met -- I think we had a rough consensus that doing 
some partial-postal-code thing was not such a good idea.  My previous 
post talks about bit more about the operational concerns raised by 
ARIN staff.

-- Sam