[ppml] Path forward on 2006-1

Sam Weiler weiler at tislabs.com
Mon Apr 24 13:55:32 EDT 2006

Based on the informal straw poll taken on Tuesday afternoon, it seems 
that the main point of contention in 2006-1 (Residential Customer 
Privacy) is about whether ARIN will continue to get city, state (or 
province), and postal code or not (or perhaps the objection was merely 
that the text I proposed is unclear on that question).

Assuming that all address data may be suppressed, the only argument I 
heard in favor of ARIN continuing to get that data came from the ARIN 
staff.  The slides in the meeting report are still password protected, 
but the meeting transcript says:

 	"The proposal as written could be interpreted -- no longer
 	provides different country information on the reassignment
 	template. ARIN must continue to collect this information in
 	order for forum verification, reassignment information and
 	utilization. ARIN could not implement the proposal as
 	written and continue to perform verification of reassignment
 	information and utilization."

I'd like to hear more from the staff about that need.  To the extent 
that they need any individual customer data to verify use of an 
address block, I'd like to know why no other metric is sufficient, 
particularly some variant of those metrics already used for blocks 
which aren't SWIP'ed or pool address blocks.

My suspicion, which I'd like staff to confirm, is that some variant on 
the existing metrics will suffice, and they do not need the 
city/state/postal code of individual users.

-- Sam

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list