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

[Christopher Morrow]

On 4/19/06, Divins, David <dsd at servervault.com> wrote:
> >I strongly oppose this provision.  There is no reason to remove address
> accountability from business orgs
>
> If Whois contains accurate contact/abuse info, how is this obscuring
> accountability? If there is abuse report it to the contact.  A
> responsible ISP will handle that request.  If the complaint is not
> handled to your satisfaction-- block the ISP at the FW level like many
> do to APNIC providers.  Also, you are assuming these reassignments are

In the world of larger network operations this is a non-starter...
(blocking all of apnic at the 'firewall') We rely on abuse contacts
working, some do some do not. I think that even i the current world we
are stuck with the non-working (effectively anonymous) abuse@ problem.

I'm, overall, undecided about this issue, residential privacy, though
I believe businesses should not be treated as 'individuals'. Most
residential assignments are /29 or smaller, so I'm not clear what
we're protecting anyway. Was there any analysis done of the folks taht
would be affected by a change in residential privacy requirements?

-Chris