[ppml] Policy Proposal 2006-1: Residential Customer Privacy
ipgoddess at gmail.com
Tue Oct 3 09:23:15 EDT 2006
If you concur completely, why was this change, that was suggested at
the meeting in Montreal, not incorporated into the policy for this
policy cycle? The community is at risk of running further cycles on
this policy than necessary.
Would you be amenable to change policy proposal 2006-1 to incorporate
"at the least, city, state, and non-specific postal code should be
preserved (5- digit ZIP (US), first 3 characters [I assume a reference
to Canada would be here]"
Or do I misunderstand with what you are concurring?
On 10/3/06, Sam Weiler <weiler at tislabs.com> wrote:
> J Bacher writes in response to Owen:
> >> A residential customer should, in all cases, have the option of
> >> publishing their information as any other
> >> internet user. The option of hiding residential address is not
> >> unreasonable, however, at the least,
> >> city, state, and non-specific postal code should be preserved (5-
> >> digit ZIP (US), first 3 characters
> > This is not reasonable for those in low population dense areas.
> I concur completely.
> >> Realistically, more information than this is a matter of public
> >> record if the customer has registered to vote.
> I'm not sure why that's relevent. Even if we assume that there's a
> public record of the names and addresses of everyone in ARIN's service
> region, that doesn't mean that we have a mapping from IP address to
> individual or address. We could even assume that everyone's credit
> report files and medical records were public, yet we wouldn't have the
> IP address to person (or address) mappings.
> -- Sam
> PPML mailing list
> PPML at arin.net
More information about the ARIN-PPML