[ppml] ARIN's Interpretation of 2003-3
weiler at tislabs.com
Tue Jan 17 13:55:18 EST 2006
On Tue, 17 Jan 2006, Bill Woodcock wrote:
> ... This is a question of preference, not a question of correctness.
> A consensus was arrived at through the policy process. It's not
> correct or incorrect, it's the preference of the majority of the
> policy process participants. Which is what ARIN does.
I'm not convinced this really is the preference of the majority --
this particular point (whether postal codes may be suppressed) was
barely mentioned in the discussion of 2003-3.
I assumed that the policy was talking about the entire address, in
part based on the fact that "street name and number" wasn't generally
called out in the discussion. Far more common were messages saying
"address information" and posts like this one, which says "name and
Admittedly, there were two posts that highlighted the "street name and
number only" bit, but I overlooked them at the time, and others may
have also. I also don't see anything in the minutes of the public
policy meetings suggesting that this point was mentioned there (though
I haven't reviewed the audio).
All that said, I think Michael is correct: in many cases postal codes
do allow for identification of very few individuals, particularly
considering the set of those likely to have their own IP assignments.
So requiring them to be published defeats the intent of 2003-3, at
least as I read it.
It looks like the right path forward is a new policy proposal to
clarify 2003-3 and 2003-5. I'll submit one shortly.
More information about the ARIN-PPML