[ppml] Path forward on 2006-1
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.
More information about the ARIN-PPML