[arin-ppml] Policy Proposal: Customer Confidentiality - revised

[Robert Bonomi]

>
> Policy Proposal 95
>
> 1. Policy Proposal Name: Customer Confidentiality
>
> 2. Proposal Originator: Aaron Wendel
>
> 3. Proposal Version: 2.0
>
> 4. Date: 10 June 2009
>
> 5. Proposal type: new
>
> 6. Policy term: permanent
>
> 7. Policy statement:
>
> ISPs may choose to enter the customer's name along with the ISP's
> address and phone number in reassignments and reallocations in lieu of
> the customer's address and phone number.  The customer's actual
> information must be provided to ARIN on request and will be held in the
> strictest confidence.


I oppose this policy proposal _as_written_.

I do not believe that this should be the sole prerogative of the ISP.

Change the wording to something like:

  "An ISP may, _at_their_customer's_request_, enter the following information:
     {customer's actual name}
     C/O {the ISP's NAME and address}
     {the ISP's phone number}
   in lieu of the customer's address and phone number.  The customer's actual
   information must be provided to ARIN on request and will be held in the
   strictest confidence."


And I can support that.


Rationale:

  The ISP does not, contrary to what some may think "own" the customer, the
  customer is an independant party, and has a right to self-identification,
  _IF_ the customer so desires.  If the customer _chooses_ to have the ISP 
  act as 'agent' for contact purposes, I have no problem with that.  Allowing
  the ISP to intercept and possibly destroy communications intended for the
  customer, for _whatever_ reason, is asking for all sorts of trouble.o
  
  The "C/O ISP NAME" is necessary, regardless, to ensure 'deliverability' of
  postal communications to the ISP acting 'on behalf of' the client.  Mail
  _addressed to_  the customer at the address of another business has a 
  significant probability of _not_ being delivered to that address -- rather
  getting 'return to sender, not at that address' handling by the post office.
  
  
  It is also worth noting that the proposed action does _NOTHING_ to discourage
  postal solicitations of the ISP's customer base.  It is a FELONY to not 
  deliver on to the customer such a solication that shows up at the ISP's
  mail address with the customer's name on it.  See 18 USC 1702 and 18 USC 1703.
  (note: addressed "to" the company, "attn: {person}" is a differnt story.)
  
  The ISP can act as a 'blind' mail forwarding service, but they get in _LOTS_ 
  of trouble if they make any attempt to censor -- or even _open_, let alone
  *read* -- anything they get, which is addressed to the customer.