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

[BARGER, DAVE (SBIS)]

The intention of this proposal is simply to protect individual's desire to
remain anonymous, and protect their personal privacy. It is not intended to
address a specific technology - DSL is used in this context simply to
illustrate by example the type of customer requesting further need for
privacy. With that said, the simple reassignments represented by this slice
of the user community are only a portion of all simple reassignments.
Corporate (non-residential) businesses would still be expected to fully
disclose information, and that information would be published in Whois.

I agree with Michael Dillion in that there must be published information and
contacts for a real person/team that is accountable - teams that deal with
network and abuse issues.  But if the ISP has detailed POC information in
Whois, wouldn't that be sufficient (just a click away in the net handle
link)?


Dave Barger
Senior Technical Director
Network Engineering IP Management
SBC Internet Services
214-495-2098 (office)
877-514-7507 (pager)


-----Original Message-----
From: Joe Provo [mailto:ppml at rsuc.gweep.net]
Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2003 5:01 AM
To: ppml at arin.net
Subject: Re: [ppml] RE: [arin-announce] Policy Proposal 2003-3:
Residential Customer Privacy


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