[ppml] RE: [arin-announce] Policy Proposal 2003-3: Residential Customer Privacy

[Joe Provo]

On Tue, Mar 18, 2003 at 10:40:54AM +0000, Michael.Dillon at radianz.com wrote:
> >Personally I don't like the Private Individual proposal.
> 
> I don't like it either. It's another example of bad policy that is too 
> detailed and therefore misses solving the problem. The fact is that some 
> organizations or individuals who receive IP addresses, either don't want 
> to publish contact information or else they are clueless in some way so 
> there is no point in publishing contact information. Therefore, a 
> reasonable policy would state something like this:
> 
>    There MUST be contact information published for all IP address 
> sub-allocations and assignments.
>    The contact information MAY belong to the upstream organization rather 
> than the address user 
>    but it MUST lead to people who can deal with issues such as network 
> abuse.

Personally, I find it sad that there is some innate expectation that 
people have some 'right' to chunks of address space and can hide from 
the responsibility. The 'residential telephone listing' is bogus as the
security concerns for IP are wildly different; resources can and are 
abused by 'action at a distance' which is not possible in the
circuit-switched world.

All that said, M Dillon's simplification above would satisfy me, and I
expect many of the accountability-minded.
 
[snip technology gripes]

The tools can and will change over time. It muddies the issue to chase 
a particular technology of the day (or yesterday) as a solution when the
solution lies in the process and data held.

Cheers,

Joe

-- 
 ppml at rsuc.gweep.net
             RSUC / GweepNet / Spunk / FnB / Usenix / SAGE