[ppml] Policy Proposal 2004-7: Residential Customer Privacy P olicy

[Robert Bonomi]

> From owner-ppml at arin.net  Wed Sep 22 18:16:52 2004
> From: "Azinger, Marla" <marla_azinger at eli.net>
> To: ppml at arin.net
> Subject: RE: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2004-7: Residential Customer Privacy P
> 	olicy
> Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2004 16:13:30 -0700
>
> Reducing or should I say limiting the number makes perfect sense.  However,
> doesnt a /25 still seem a little large of an assignment for residential use?
> How did you come up with this number?  Even if someone was using one IP
> number per remote controlled device in their house...I still think 128 ip
> numbers would be slightly excessive wouldnt it?
>
> In general I support this proposal....I just question the quantity stated.

I concur entirely with the above sentiments.

I can concieve how a residence with several co-habiting techies could possibly
exhaust a /28 of _publicly_accessable_ addresses, *HOWEVER*,q I seriously 
question that 'personal-only' use could legitimitely need anything larger than 
a /27 in =public= address-space.   Given the size of the RFC-1918 space 
available for use at _any_ residence -- and the number of million-dollar-plus-
annual-revenues business that operate out of only a single /29 -- I utterly 
fail to concieve how 'stictly non-business use' could possibly _require_ a /25.
I'd suggest that a /27 is a rational upper bound, and that even for a /27,
that a _hard_look_ be taken at the 'justification' for requesting that large
an address-space before 'private' status is authorized for said /27.

"Wish-list" would include some guide-lines as to _some_ things which absolutely
_disqualified_ a customer from being considered 'non-business'.  e.g., services
paid for by company check, or on a 'corporate' credit-card.


>
> Regards
> Marla Azinger
> Electric Lightwave
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Member Services [mailto:memsvcs at arin.net]
> Sent: Thursday, September 09, 2004 7:42 AM
> To: ppml at arin.net
> Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2004-7: Residential Customer Privacy
> Policy
>
>
> Concerning the proposed policy, Residential Customer Privacy Policy, which
> was posted to PPML on August 20, 2004, the ARIN Advisory Council supports
> moving the proposed policy (as is) forward in the evaluation process.
>
> ARIN welcomes feedback and discussion about this policy proposal in the
> weeks leading to the ARIN Public Policy Meeting in Reston, Virginia
> scheduled for October 20-21, 2004.
>
> According to the ARIN Internet Resource Policy Evaluation Process the
> Advisory Council will evaluate policy proposals after the Public Policy
> Meeting. The feedback and discussion of policy proposals on the Public
> Policy Mailing List will be included in the AC's evaluation.
>
> Subscription information for the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List can be
> found at:
>
> 	http://www.arin.net/mailing_lists/index.html
>
> The ARIN Internet Resource Policy Evaluation Process can be found at:
>
> 	http://www.arin.net/policy/ipep.html
>
> ARIN's Policy Proposal Archive can be found at:
>
> 	http://www.arin.net/policy/proposal_archive.html
>
> The policy proposal text is below and can be found at:
>
> 	http://www.arin.net/policy/2004_7.html
>
> Regards,
>
> Member Services
> American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)
>
>
> ### * ###
>
>
> Policy Proposal 2004-7: Residential Customer Privacy Policy
>
> Author: William Leibzon
>
> Policy statement:
>
> An organization with downstream residential customer who is not engaged in
> business activities 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 be less then or equal to 128 ips and have
> accurate upstream Abuse and Technical POCs visible on the WHOIS record for
> that block.
>
> Rationale:
>
> The intent of residential customer privacy was to allow private citizens
> to have privacy and safety in their personal life while being able to
> request and use more then 8 ip addresses with residenial dsl line.
>
> However soon after implementation it became clear that some of the ip
> blocks being designated as "Private customer" are being used for business
> purposes which is clearly seen by size of such reassignments as
> 69.111.160.0/22. While it is not unexpected that some people may run
> business (including internet businesses) from their home, the laws regard
> such activity as being similar to running business from small office and
> usually require such businesses to receive a license from appropriate
> local or state agency and to disclose the activity to the public, as such
> different privacy rules apply in these situations.
>
> This policy replaces current residential customer privacy 2003-3 and
> requires that ISPs only designate reassignment whois data as "Private
> Customer" if no business activity is involved with use of the ip block.
> The limit for the reassignment is set to 128 ips as larger number of
> computers in one residence is likely an indication of business activity
> (as an example currently telephone companies allow up to 4 residential
> telephone lines and if somebody needs larger number of telephone lines to
> his home, those must be purchased as business telephone lines).
> Additionally the amendment fixes small grammer error in current policy
> text that involves incorrect use of plural and singular tenses.
>