[arin-ppml] Petition Underway - Policy Proposal 95:Customer Confidentiality - Time Sensitive

[James Hess]

<Daniel_Alexander at cable.comcast.com> wrote:
> This is my last post tonight. I'm on EST time and it's late. I have a
> question on your last post. If it is all about public accountability,
> then why do you think we draw the lines where we do? Why is a commercial
> network behind a /30 less accountable than one with a /29? Why are
> residential hosts less accountable then commercial hosts? I know they
> are loaded questions, but it concerns me when we draw these lines in

"Hosts"  aren't accountable.    It  is  administrators of networks
that are accountable.
Information is supposed to still be kept using SWIP or the form  4.2.3.7.5.

The utilization criterion required to properly justify a  /30  is so
trivial,  that the public basically need not be concerned with the
individual user's  information, providing the ISP is not systemically
cooperating in allocating one individual many /30s.

ISPs often do not assign residential users permanent IP space, instead
they get  dynamic allocated an IP.   The paperwork  required to update
POCs would be unreasonable.

Also there are privacy concerns that lead a good ISP to avoid SWIP'ing
residential users if possible -- a residential user often does not
have such a thing as suitable business contact information.

There is an expectation that businesses can always be contacted, a
duty can reasonably be imposed on them to hire or make an existing
contact available, but residential user information might be otherwise
unavailable,  and  can be used to invade personal privacy of real
people.

It is unreasonable to require a residential end user to  'hire out'
someone to serve as a POC for their one host.


There are lines drawn, but   /29 or larger appears to the reasonable place.
It essentially allows  max of 4 user IPs,  or  1 point-to-point link
for a user, without requiring SWIP.

--
-J