weiler at tislabs.com
Tue Oct 3 09:28:34 EDT 2006
Martin Hannigan writes:
>> - Current Status: Not revised; the author did not desire to change the
>> text of the proposal
> Ok. I'll bite. Why not? This seems obtuse considering
> all of the feedback provided and the subsequent discussion.
As I wrote in April: "...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)."
Since then, I think we've clarified the meaning of the text (this text
doesn't constrain what ARIN could ask for under NDA, it just gives
ISPs permission to suppress data from the WHOIS ).
I also asked ARIN staff to clarify their need for city/state/zip.
ARIN's CEO responded: "I will not go into a discussion of how often or
under which circumstances it is specifically used, but will say that
it is necessary information needed by staff to perform their work."
Absent more detail from the staff, I continue to believe that this
policy won't cause ARIN any operational problems that can't be easily
worked around (perhaps with an NDA'd disclosure).
So I think we've made progress on the main point of contention, and
that progress doesn't suggest to me that the text needs to change.
Accordingly, I left the text untouched.
More information about the ARIN-PPML