[ppml] Policy Proposal -- Limit Scope of Anonymous Allocations

[Owen DeLong]

--On Wednesday, November 19, 2003 1:33 PM -0500 Leo Bicknell 
<bicknell at ufp.org> wrote:

> In a message written on Wed, Nov 19, 2003 at 10:13:48AM -0800, Owen
> DeLong wrote:
>> However, just because we can't solve the type 1 case does not mean, in my
>> opinion, that we should NOT solve the type 2 case.
>
> I disagree.  If we can't solve the problem, then increasing the
> burden on a particular subset of users (in this case ISP's and users
> who get static assignments) is a bad thing to do.  I don't think
> they need to be solved in the same policy proposal, but we either
> need to close all the doors at roughly the same time, or close none
> at all.  Otherwise we are just discriminating against a subset of
> people.
>
But we're not increasing that burden.  We're simply refusing to DECREASE
it.  The burden is already there today.  2003-3 reduces it for some subset.
I'm proposing to reduce the scope of the subset for which 2003-3 reduces
that burden.  This is a good thing.

> You asked if I had problems with the policy as written:
>
> In a message written on Tue, Nov 18, 2003 at 07:15:19PM -0800, Owen
> DeLong wrote:
>> 1.	Said provider must agree to address abuse complaints about
>> 	any blocks which are assigned under that policy promptly.
>
> If we're going to impose this criteria, it should be applied to all
> blocks (eg true of every assignment, allocation, and swip), and as
> such could be a stand alone policy.
>
I have no problem with that, but, I think it is particularly important
to ANY block for which contact information is obscured.

> That said, I don't think ARIN should get involved in the abuse issue
> at all.  As soon as "address abuse" appears in a policy ARIN must
> now define what is abuse, and what is an appropriate measure to
> address the abuse issues.  Spam is not the only thing (some) people
> consider abuse.  Everyone differs on what is an appropriate response.
>
I disagree.  By including this in the agreement, and taking no other
action on it, ARIN merely creates a opportunity legal recourse against
the ISP for failing to address downstream problems.  No definition of
abuse on ARINs part is necessary, the courts can sort that out between
the Abusee and the ISP (and possibly the ISPs customer/abuser).

> At the very minimum, if a policy is going to address the abuse issue
> a very detailed definition of abuse needs to be included, else it will
> be left to the ARIN staff to decide what is abuse, and that would be
> a very bad thing in my opinion.
>
No.  It is not left to the ARIN staff, because ARIN takes no action relative
to the abuse and is not involved in the abuse process at all.  It merely
places a legal onus on the ISP receiving the allocation to accept 
responsibility
for downstream abuse.  After that, it's between the abusee and the ISP.

>> 2.	No provider shall assign a block larger than a /27 under the
>> 	privacy provisions of the policy.
>
> I have no idea why we would arbitrarily limit the size of a residential
> assignment.  I have no idea what you, or anyone else does at home.
> Maybe you need a /24, and I see no issue with that if you can follow
> normal justification guidelines.
>
I have multiple /24s actually, and, they are SWIP'd.  Frankly, if I were 
just
a residence, I would have a hard time justifying more than a /27.  However,
since I run a business here as well, I have more space.  I don't think that
entitles me to pull my business under residential privacy provisions.  I
think allowing for anonymous /22s is a very bad idea.

>> 3.	No customer of a given provider shall be given more than one
>> 	assignment under the policy, except, for a period of time not
>> 	exceeding 90 days for the purpose of renumbering into a larger
>> 	or smaller allocation (overlap for renumbering).
>
> Using the word customer here is a bad idea.  If I have a summer
> house and a winter house in two different states, but served by the
> same ISP I can't get an assignment for each under the privacy policy?
> I am after all one customer.  The rich and famous are quite likely
> to want the privacy, and quite likely to want service at more than
> one residence.
>
The rich and famous don't need their ISP for privacy.  They would register
both under some corporation they own with a P.O. Box.  Sorry, no sale as
far as I'm concerned.

Owen


-- 
If it wasn't crypto-signed, it probably didn't come from me.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20031119/bdce10aa/attachment.sig>