[arin-ppml] Policy Proposal 95: Customer Confidentiality

Fri Jan 29 14:59:07 EST 2010

That is perfectly correct David I also support the petition. I believe that
discussion is necessary. We are talking v6 allocations and as such I do not
believe for one minute that any of us have all the answers.

There is a privacy issue here too and whilst I support the proposal as
written, It does not mean that I cannot be swayed. This proposal has to be
and needs to be discussed at length so that we can all begin to see the
implications now and in an IPv6 world and beyond.

RD

>
> Message: 3
> Date: 28 Jan 2010 21:19:59 -0600
> From: David Farmer <farmer at umn.edu>
> To: arin-ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal 95: Customer Confidentiality
> Message-ID: <Gophermail.2.0.1001282119590.25907 at vs-m.tc.umn.edu>
> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=UTF-8
>
> Several people including Rudy below, have stated that they support the
> proposal as written, and that is all well and good.
>
> I would suggest that if in addition to supporting the text of the proposal
> you also support the Petition that is in process, that you should say that
> clearly too. I bring this up because it is not impossible for someone to
> think this proposal is a good idea, but to not support the Petition.
>
> As I am on the AC and already had my vote, so I take no position on the
> Petition either way, this Petition is for the rest of the community to
> decide.
>
> However, I would just like to make sure we avoid any misunderstandings in
> this whole process.
>
> Thanks
>
> On Jan 28 2010, Rudolph Daniel wrote:
>
> >I also support this policy proposal as written.
> >
> >
> >RD
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 22:20:41 -0500
> From: Steve Bertrand <steve at ibctech.ca>
> To: Aaron Wendel <aaron at wholesaleinternet.net>
> Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal 95: Customer Confidentiality
> Message-ID: <4B625409.3030803 at ibctech.ca>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> Aaron Wendel wrote:
>
> > If you are being scanned by a machine on my network I'm the first, and in
> > most cases, the only one that needs to know about it and the only one
> that
> > can do anything for you.
>
> I don't think we're going to get anywhere with this policy, because my
> objectives have been solely focused on the fact that everyone will
> actually create proper SWIP records, and have the same mentality that I
> do, that the Internet runs based on the best interest of the community.
>
> With that said...
>
> I know how to look up your abuse PoC if the front-desk lady is the
> recipient of my phone call when I call the number listed in their SWIP.
> I will find you. So will anyone else troubleshooting a problem that
> requires digging up whois information.
>
> You, being a good netizen, having client SWIP info in the database,
> allows me to get the information of your client that is attacking me,
> and pass it along to a peer in the event that they see the same IP block
> attacking them via a different path. Or, if your malicious client signs
> up with an SP who also is a good community member, will list the same
> info in whois.
>
> Again, it's unlikely, as I'm slowly loosing faith that all ISPs are good
> ISPs :)
>
> Aside from knowing how to find you without you hiding information, did
> you consider what I said earlier about the potential advertisement
> stream for your clients that could be whois?
>
> Perhaps they may *want* to have their info listed. If you really feel
> that harvesters can find your clients that easily, perhaps your clients
> may believe that they can be found the same way for new revenue/market
> streams by potential clients of their own.
>
> Steve
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 22:24:39 -0500
> From: <todd at kcix.net>
> To: David Farmer <farmer at umn.edu>
> Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal 95: Customer Confidentiality
> Message-ID: <9ffde89c9a62405db3c19301c03a0567 at kcix.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> I support the petition as well as the proposal. :)
>
> Todd Bysfield
> Kansas City Internet eXchange
> 6910 W. 83rd St.
> Suite 207
> Overland Park, KS  66204
> http://www.kcix.net
> AS40542
>
> On 28 Jan 2010 21:19:59 -0600, David Farmer <farmer at umn.edu> wrote:
> > Several people including Rudy below, have stated that they support the
> > proposal as written, and that is all well and good.
> >
> > I would suggest that if in addition to supporting the text of the
> proposal
> > you also support the Petition that is in process, that you should say
> that
> > clearly too. I bring this up because it is not impossible for someone to
>
> > think this proposal is a good idea, but to not support the Petition.
> >
> > As I am on the AC and already had my vote, so I take no position on the
> > Petition either way, this Petition is for the rest of the community to
> > decide.
> >
> > However, I would just like to make sure we avoid any misunderstandings
> in
> > this whole process.
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > On Jan 28 2010, Rudolph Daniel wrote:
> >
> >>I also support this policy proposal as written.
> >>
> >>
> >>RD
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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.
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 19:29:55 -0800
> From: "George Bonser" <gbonser at seven.com>
> To: "George Bonser" <gbonser at seven.com>,        "Steve Bertrand"
>        <steve at ibctech.ca>
> Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal 95: Customer Confidentiality
> Message-ID:
>        <5A6D953473350C4B9995546AFE9939EE081F7496 at RWC-EX1.corp.seven.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain;       charset="us-ascii"
>
> > Because this proposal provides no benefit to the community at large,
> > and
> > because it has the potential to facilitate abuse of all sorts of other
> > policy, I can't support this proposal.
>
> That said, I would not be opposed to a way to protect the service
> providers from someone perusing ARIN information for sales contacts.  I
> just haven't come up with a good suggestion.  Heck, it seems any time I
> update anything at ARIN, I get a new blast of sales calls.  It is
> annoying, I know the sales drones do use ARINs information for sales
> contacts.
>
> You can't allow large providers unfettered access because they are one
> of the abusers of the current system.  A provider filling a customer
> request for a block of addresses should have access to information on
> all blocks SWIPed to that customer.  An end user attempting to track
> down abuse or troubleshooting a problem should be able to determine who
> owns a block and what other blocks they own.  The idea should not be to
> shield an organization from having their network assignments known, but
> to shield the provider from having their network space crawled to
> determine who their customers are.
>
> George
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 21:30:37 -0600
> From: "Aaron Wendel" <aaron at wholesaleinternet.net>
> To: "'Steve Bertrand'" <steve at ibctech.ca>
> Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal 95: Customer Confidentiality
> Message-ID: <03e401caa093$6cacefb0$4606cf10$@net>
> Content-Type: text/plain;       charset="US-ASCII"
>
> The proposal doesn't restrict information an ISP may disclose.  Simply
> leaves it up to the ISP to decide with their customers and gives them the
> same options and protection that access providers (cable companies, DSL
> providers and Dial-up operators) currently enjoy.
>
> Aaron
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Steve Bertrand [mailto:steve at ibctech.ca]
> Sent: Thursday, January 28, 2010 9:21 PM
> To: Aaron Wendel
> Cc: 'George Bonser'; arin-ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal 95: Customer Confidentiality
>
> Aaron Wendel wrote:
>
> > If you are being scanned by a machine on my network I'm the first, and in
> > most cases, the only one that needs to know about it and the only one
> that
> > can do anything for you.
>
> I don't think we're going to get anywhere with this policy, because my
> objectives have been solely focused on the fact that everyone will
> actually create proper SWIP records, and have the same mentality that I
> do, that the Internet runs based on the best interest of the community.
>
> With that said...
>
> I know how to look up your abuse PoC if the front-desk lady is the
> recipient of my phone call when I call the number listed in their SWIP.
> I will find you. So will anyone else troubleshooting a problem that
> requires digging up whois information.
>
> You, being a good netizen, having client SWIP info in the database,
> allows me to get the information of your client that is attacking me,
> and pass it along to a peer in the event that they see the same IP block
> attacking them via a different path. Or, if your malicious client signs
> up with an SP who also is a good community member, will list the same
> info in whois.
>
> Again, it's unlikely, as I'm slowly loosing faith that all ISPs are good
> ISPs :)
>
> Aside from knowing how to find you without you hiding information, did
> you consider what I said earlier about the potential advertisement
> stream for your clients that could be whois?
>
> Perhaps they may *want* to have their info listed. If you really feel
> that harvesters can find your clients that easily, perhaps your clients
> may believe that they can be found the same way for new revenue/market
> streams by potential clients of their own.
>
> Steve
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 9.0.733 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2648 - Release Date: 01/28/10
> 13:36:00
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 8
> Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 22:38:00 -0500
> From: Steve Bertrand <steve at ibctech.ca>
> To: Aaron Wendel <aaron at wholesaleinternet.net>
> Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal 95: Customer Confidentiality
> Message-ID: <4B625818.4050303 at ibctech.ca>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> Aaron Wendel wrote:
> > The proposal doesn't restrict information an ISP may disclose.  Simply
> > leaves it up to the ISP to decide with their customers and gives them the
> > same options and protection that access providers (cable companies, DSL
> > providers and Dial-up operators) currently enjoy.
>
> ...reading this paragraph, you are trying to level a playing field of
> sorts...
>
> I thought that "cable companies, DSL providers and Dial-up operators"
> were ISPs...
>
> My understanding is if an 'ISP' doles out a /29, we have to SWIP it, and
> so would anyone else who has IP space allocated by ARIN, no matter what
> type of access they provide.
>
> What am I missing, and what are they enjoying that I'm not?
>
> I don't SWIP the IPs of my dial up clients, nor my DSL users when they
> don't have < /29.
>
> Steve
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> ARIN-PPML mailing list
> ARIN-PPML at arin.net
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
>
> End of ARIN-PPML Digest, Vol 55, Issue 57
> *****************************************
>

-- 
Rudi Daniel
e Business Consultant
http://www.svgpso.org
http://oecstimes.wordpress.com
“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so
certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.” - Bertrand
Russell
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20100129/f04cbbb7/attachment.htm>