[ppml] Comment on "Policy Proposal 2006-1" (Residential Privacy modification)

Owen DeLong owen at delong.com
Thu Oct 5 14:21:01 EDT 2006

On Oct 5, 2006, at 9:02 AM, Sam Weiler wrote:

> On Wed, 4 Oct 2006, william(at)elan.net wrote:
>> I'd like to make additional comment regarding 2006-1 and potentially
>> offering a way to a solution that solves the issues but does not  
>> cause
>> as many problems and changes with ARIN system.
>> As a reminder a primary justification for introducing this seems to
>> be that full ZIP codes (6 code in Canada or full 9 digit code in US)
>> and city is in some cases are too specific and is almost the same as
>> offering full street address.
> As I said in April[1] and repeated earlier this week[2], my impression
> from Montreal was that MOST of the objections to 2006-1 were fueled by
> the staff's concerns about not having access to data they need, not a
> desire to have city/state/postal codes published for all to see.
My impression and certainly my objections were over multiple
issues.  I believe that the research and other value of having the
non-specific location data are beneficial to the community and
should be preserved.  As such, while I accept the idea of not
publishing complete address information, I still think that it is
a bad idea to stop publishing City and non-specific postal
code information.

> I don't think we'd heard from many folks who want to use that data
> about their desire for it, particularly absent a name, street name,
> and number.  If there are such folks out there, I'd really like to
> hear more about their need, and why it can't be satisfied in some
> other way.  Then we, as a community, can desire whether their need for
> the data outweighs the individual users' rights to some privacy.
I remember a number of people coming to the microphone and
talking about their uses of the data.  I don't remember CAIDA
being at the meeting, but, I think they use this data on a regular
basis.  I know Martin Hannigan outlined several legitimate uses
of the data.

> Absent such voices, let's deal with the other objections and move
> along.
Since such voices are/were not absent, lets accept that these
objections still exist and preserve the city, state/province,
and non-specific postal code.


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20061005/f9524973/attachment.sig>

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list