[arin-ppml] Policy Proposal: Customer Confidentiality
kkargel at polartel.com
Wed Jun 10 17:25:23 EDT 2009
> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On
> Behalf Of Milton L Mueller
> Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2009 3:05 PM
> To: arin-ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal: Customer Confidentiality
> 1. IANAL, too
> 2. you don't need to have passed a bar exam to know that there are laws
> pertaining to privacy, or to discuss them.
> 3. i've co-authored policy papers, some in refereed journals, with legal
> professionals about dns whois, including an international comparison of
> privacy laws and their relevance to whois
> 4. privacy laws don't need to reference whois specifically to be relevant
> to whois.
> 5. some laws do specifically reference it, e.g., in the bilateral trade
> agreements in which the U.S. tried to impose a specific approach to DNS
> Whois upon small trading partners (Peru, Singapore, etc.). Those countries
> responded by invoking their national privacy laws and saying that any
> whois service had to comply with them. q.e.d.
Privacy-schmivacy.. I don't care whether or not the real end user is
publically listed as a POC, but there DOES need to be a real live contact
that can handle problems for the network.
There needs to be a functional administrative contact and a functional
technical contact. Those contacts cannot just be someone who knows someone
who knows who to call.
If there is not going to be both an administrative and technical contact
listed that actually has something to do with the network then I suggest we
might as well abandon whois and swip entirely and just rely on registration
records. It would save a lot of work and money.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 3224 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the ARIN-PPML