[ppml] Last Call for Comment: Policy Proposal 2003-3

[David Sinn]

I would actually take your statement further and say that many service
providers are party to the abuse since it (often) pays the bills.

Further, it is a red herring to argue that this will help/hinder/affect
spammers and/or abuse.  The vast majority of them can be ignored in they
become an effect on the real world (I.E. subpoena).

The reality is that there are innumerable ways to obfuscate your information
in the real world, so why make an extension in the virtual one.  If you have
a need to protect/hide your personal information please see Owen's prior
list and/or do a search via your preferred search engine.

I heartily disagree with this proposal.

David 

On 11/18/03 4:26 PM, "John Brown" <john at chagres.net> wrote:

> And why would your mother or daughter need more than a single
> IP address ??
> 
> Owen's comment was if its SWIP'd it should have valid contact data.
> 
> Which I agree with.
> 
> Pushing the problem to the service provider doesn't work.  Many Many
> service providers do not respond to abuse complaints.  And only if
> you happen to be in the "right club" do you get any sort of response.
> 
> 
> On Tue, Nov 18, 2003 at 03:34:59PM -0700, Taylor, Stacy wrote:
>> Hi All,
>> 
>> I disagree with Owen and heartily endorse this proposal.
>> 
>> The onus of keeping these blocks abuse-free still lies with the upstream
>> provider, who runs the risk of a blacklisted block if there is a spammer on
>> it.  
>> My Mother's name and address should not be listed in the ARIN database.  My
>> college-aged daughter's name and address should not be listed in the ARIN
>> database.  
>> 
>> XO
>> /S
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Owen DeLong [mailto:owen at delong.com]
>> Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2003 1:13 PM
>> To: ppml at arin.net
>> Subject: Re: [ppml] Last Call for Comment: Policy Proposal 2003-3
>> 
>> 
>> I still think this policy is a bad idea.  I still think if anyone wants
>> enough address space to get swipped (a /29 or larger), there's no reason
>> they can't remain accountable for that address space.  There are already
>> multiple options for said person to protect their personal privacy:
>> 
>> P.O. Boxes,
>> Company Names (it's really easy to create a schedule C company)
>> etc.
>> 
>> This policy just serves to further allow for SPAMMERS to get anonymous
>> IP blocks.
>> 
>> Owen
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> --On Tuesday, November 18, 2003 14:07 -0500 Member Services
>> <memsvcs at arin.net> wrote:
>> 
>>> The ARIN Advisory Council voted to forward the following policy
>>> proposal to the ARIN Board of Trustees for consideration.
>>> 
>>> This is a last call for comments on this policy proposal prior
>>> to the ARIN Board of Trustees review. Comments received during
>>> this period will be included with the proposal when it is presented
>>> to the Board of Trustees for their consideration.
>>> 
>>> Please send your comments to ppml at arin.net. This last call will
>>> expire at 23:59 EST on December 3, 2003.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Member Services
>>> American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)
>>> 
>>> 
>>> *** Last Call: Policy Proposal 2003-3: Residential Customer Privacy ***
>>> 
>>> An organization with downstream residential customers may substitute
>>> that organization's name for the customer's name, e.g. 'Private
>>> customer - XYZ Network', and the customer's street address may read
>>> 'Private Residence'. Each private downstream residential reassignment
>>> must have accurate upstream Abuse and Technical POCs visible on the
>>> WHOIS record for that block.
>>> 
>>> ## END ##
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> If this message was not signed with gpg key 0FE2AA3D, it's probably
>> a forgery.