[ppml] Policy Proposal 2006-1: Residential Customer Privacy

[Bill Darte]

> 
> On Fri, Jan 27, 2006 at 09:06:29AM -0600, J Bacher wrote:
> > william(at)elan.net wrote:
> > > I oppose this policy proposal. The city and state data is not 
> > > specific enough as to reveal location of the user, but it is very 
> > > useful for statistical & geographic analysis purposes.
> > 
> > Privacy shouldn't be compromised because you or others want 
> > demographic
> > information.
> 
> If people want to disclose such information, including for 
> the purpose of aiding research, more power to them. But the 
> argument here isn't about whether people can disclose the 
> information if they want to-- the policy proposal says "may", 
> not "must", about suppressing the details. It's about whether 
> they can choose not to disclose it if they don't want to.
> 
> Other people's opinions about whether users *should* want to 
> disclose their location information-- because it's for a good 
> cause, or because we don't believe partial information is 
> snip
>
> Suzanne

The proposal also states "must have accurate upstream
Abuse and Technical POCs visible on the WHOIS record for that
block."

Is this the case now?  Assuming that this were NOT the case...that it
couldn't/didn't get enforced...would this have any bearing on the
advisability of implementing 2006-1

Bill Darte
ARIN AC