[ppml] Collapsing Residential and Business Privacy (ease of use) Was: Re: Privacy of Non-Residential Reassignments in Public Whois

[Scott Leibrand]

On 04/19/06 at 2:18am -0400, Martin Hannigan <hannigan at renesys.com> wrote:

> My suggestion to the AC (and proposers) regarding
> proposals would be a rewrite to accomplish the following:
>
> - eliminate differentiation between residential and business

So this would allow ISPs to omit street address information for all
registrants, regardless of size?  That strikes me as excessive.  Also,
currently the differentiation between residential and business allows
ISPs to put "Private Residence" in the name field for residential
customers.  Would you disallow that, or allow something similar for
"Private Business"?  IMO either would be undesirable.

> - designate /29's and smaller as private

If you re-worded this to make SWIPs for /29's optional, I wouldn't oppose
this provision.  I don't like designating them private, as that implies
you MUST NOT (or at least SHOULD NOT) SWIP them.

> - reduction of NA postal codes to 3 characters

Again, there's an implication here that postal codes MUST NOT be more than
3 characters, which IMO is a bad idea.  I'm OK with *allowing* ISPs to
submit SWIPs with City, State/Province, and 3-character ZIP/postal code,
although that introduces an unfairness between US ZIP codes and Canadian
Postal Codes, since a 3-digit ZIP code is much less specific than a
3-character Postal Code.

[No comment on LEA stuff.]

> My recommendation is based on the following prefix distribution
> data that we have compiled based on whois data not older than
> 2 weeks. It shows that /29 is over 60% of all data and we would
> improve overall privacy by X factors. I think it is fair to say that
> the vast majority of residences are within /29, and I agree with Owen Delong
> that privacy is not an expectation for business whois data.

If you agree with this, then do you in fact intend to allow street
addresses to be masked for all business SWIPs?  It seems to me the first
bullet point above is completely at odds with this statement.

-Scott