[ppml] /29 limit for ARIN SWIP whois

>-----Original Message-----
>From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net]On Behalf Of
>Divins, David
>Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2008 4:20 AM
>Cc: Public Policy Mailing List
>Subject: Re: [ppml] /29 limit for ARIN SWIP whois
>
>
>Mr. Conrad is correct that I have overstated my desire to rid the world
>of these tools and what I really want is a policy revamp of information
>required.
>
>I do take exception to the idea that I want the internet to be full of
>child predators and spammers-- I hate spammers.
>
>However, my point is as long as an address has the appropraite contact
>info (be it my abuse desk or a reassigned abuse desk) I feel there is no
>reason that end user info and physical address information needs to be
>published. 

Then field your own rwhois server and you can then determine what
fields of information you want to have displayed.

My concern here is that since it is so easy to circumvent the
existing SWIP requirements for disclosure  (All you have to
do is replace the address info with "Not Available - refer to 
Wonkulating Gronkulator ISP if you feel the need to obscure the
data) that watering them down to only requiring, say, name,
rank, and serial number, is equivalent to not requiring anything
at all.

It's kind of like the 55Mph speed limit.  Nobody follows the
double nickle - but having it sets a baseline for behavior,
that is, everyone will happily drive 60, most people will drive
65, some people will drive 70, few people will drive 75, and 
so on.

Similarly, while everyone currently supplies at least POC,
not everyone supplies complete name and street accress info,
fewer make sure it's accurate for the netblocks,
fewer still make sure the POC is even reachable, even
fewer actually respond to it.

If you change SWIP requirements to only require POC then
your changing the baseline so now your going to not have
everyone even supplying POC much less the rest of the
data, and almost nobody will bother responding to it.

As for the privacy aspects of the thing, there is a very
simple answer for this.  If the IP customer has a public
listing of their name in either the White or the Yellow
Pages, or if they have an operating webserver on the IP
address that publishes their contact info, then they must
disclose full data via SWIP.  Only
the customers who have unlisted telephone book data are
permitted to publish a "Not Available - Refer to ISP"
kind of listing.  They can't have it both ways.

>Despite what many believe, for me, it is not because I don't
>want my customer base "raped".  I am secure enough in my service
>delivery that my customers will stay even if targeted by others.
>

The only reason I said that is to throw it out on the table -
I've seen enough of these discussions in the past to know that
this is a primary motivator for some folks - but they will never
admit it unless someone else does first because deep down they
know it's a baloney reason.

(Cue here for the puffed-up crumb to enter stage right spluttering
about how concealing customer data on the Internet is vital for them
to stay in business)

Ted