[arin-ppml] SWIPs & IPv6

[Owen DeLong]

Milton,

Perhaps I did not use an exactly correct term to meet your particular  
sophistry requirements.

However, internet addresses are a resource which has been placed in  
the trust of the RIR
system for distribution in the best interests of the internet  
community as defined by that
community.  To me, that is as much a form of public commons as  
anything else.

I thought I made my position clear on the subject at hand, but, since  
you apparently did
not understand, I'll clarify further:

1.	If you receive more than a trivial amount of IP number resources,  
you have the
	responsibility to make valid reliable contact data available to those  
users of the
	internet who may need to contact you in the event that systems  
claiming to be
	within your network are sending harmful or undesired traffic into  
their networks.
	(Note, that anyone with an internet connection fits in the scope of  
this definition
	in my opinion, so, placing the data in whois seems perfectly  
reasonable since
	you cannot generally access whois data without an internet connection).

2.	You have the responsibility not to emit harmful traffic in general.

3.	You have the responsibility not to emit undesired traffic towards  
networks that
	have informed you that they do not want your traffic.

4.	You have the responsibility to respond to attempts to communicate  
with you via
	the contact information you have published, and, to act in a  
reasonable fashion
	to resolve issues brought to your attention through that contact.

Now, since the next obvious question is the definition of a trivial  
amount of IP number
resources, I'll clarify my thoughts on that subject as well:

1.	If you possess more than zero ASNs, you have a non-trivial amount  
of IP number
	resources.

2.	If you possess any RIR-direct allocations or assignments, you have  
a non-trivial
	amount of IP number resources.

3.	If you possess more than 8 globally unique IPv4, you have a non- 
trivial amount
	of IP number resources.

4.	If you possess more than a /60 of IPv6 addresses (either a  
contiguous /60 or
	some combination of longer prefixes totaling an equivalent amount of  
address
	space), you have a non-trivial amount of IP number resources.

As I stated, the residential privacy concerns expressed by other  
posters, including Michael
Dillon, are bogus because the current policy allows the data for those  
resource holders
to be sufficiently obscured as to protect them.

Further, most of the other concerns expressed are trivially addressed  
as I suggested
below, by the organization in question getting a legitimate registered  
fictitious name
or creating a corporation and using a mail receiving service for their  
address to do
business with ARIN.

Sure, there are costs associated with this, just as there is a fee for  
having your
POTS telephone number unlisted.  This allows resource holders to  
decide how
much their privacy is worth to them.  I would think you would be the  
last person
to have a problem with such a mechanism.

Owen

On Dec 5, 2009, at 1:31 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote:

> Owen
> There is no law, regulation or constitutional provision that  
> declares Internet addresses to be a "public commons resource."  
> Indeed, your statements indicate that you may not have the clearest  
> grasp of what you are saying theoretically (do you mean "public  
> good" or "commons" and if you mean commons, do you mean "open access  
> commons" or not?). FYI, IP addresses are both rival in consumption  
> and excludable, which means that they fail both tests of a public  
> good and need not be regulated as a commons.
>
> And even if they were, there is no logical, technical or operational  
> linkage between the resource management regime and the alleged  
> requirement to make all information about all users completely  
> public for all purposes.
>
> To say that using IP addresses entails certain responsibilities is  
> true. But we are debating what those responsibilities are or should  
> be., You do not answer that question by begging it.
>
> Can we PLEASE attempt to discuss ways to solve the problems Danny  
> MacPherson brought up? I can't even remember clearly what they were.
> ________________________________________
> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On  
> Behalf Of Owen DeLong [owen at delong.com]
> Sent: Friday, December 04, 2009 9:46 PM
> To: Ted Mittelstaedt
> Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] SWIPs & IPv6
>
> The claims that ISPs are forced to maintain contact information for
> individuals is bunk
> anyway.
>
> 1.      There is a residential privacy provision already in whois.
>
> 2.      Most individuals don't get blocks large enough to require  
> SWIP.
>
> Finally, if you need a large block and don't want to register as an
> individual, getting
> a legal fictitious name, or, creating a corporation is a relatively
> simple thing to do.
> That, combined with an address at a mail receiving service (such as
> Mailboxes
> etc. used to do before they became UPS) allows you to register without
> need
> to expose your residential address.
>
> However, internet addresses are a public commons resource.  If you
> want to be
> granted the exclusive registration of a significant portion of said
> public commons,
> then, in exchange, you accept certain r
> esponsibilities, one of which
> is maintaining
> a way to contact you about network-related issues that includes a
> valid postal,
> email, and telephone contact point.
>
> This is a completely legitimate trade-off and I do not see a need to
> change it.
>
> The information should remain transparent and open.
>
> Owen
>
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.