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

[Joe Morgan]

I still have yet to find a good example of how this policy would be
bad. They either make it out as something its not by not reading the
policy in full or just make wild accusations that make no real world
sense. When pointed out to me I also read the previous articles and
still feel this needs to be discussed and changed. I see no way this
would hide malicious users and I still do not see any way I could hide
a customer under this policy? The only thing this really changes is my
providing my customers phone number and address that's it. I still
would have to swip my ranges and I would still have to provide the
customers name. I honestly believe the only reason people have a issue
with this policy is they either do not understand it or they are not
going to be effected by it anyway so they don't see the real reasoning
behind changing it. How many people against actually even swip ips?


On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 6:12 PM, Aaron Wendel
<aaron at wholesaleinternet.net> wrote:
>
>>You can support the idea but not the proposal.  I definitely don't
>>support the proposal.  I am willing to look at the idea, however.  If
>>you can make a logical argument that the current policy as written
>>makes it impossible for ISP's to exclude private individuals or
>>residences in certain circumstances, I'd support a modification to
>>current policy.
>
> I'm not sure I understand what you mean.  Residential customers are already
> covered under a separate policy allowing them to be deemed "private".  My
> proposal provides equal protection for hosted and collocated customers.
>
>>You and the other supporters want to re-open discussion, because you
>>clearly aren't willing to re-read the archives as to why this kind
>>of proposal is generally a bad idea.  Well, OK.  I guess sometimes
>>people don't want to read boring old archives and prefer the lively
>>give and take of discussion.  I think it's
>>a diverting waste of time but since there's enough people that appear
>>to need it, I'll do my duty as an opponent and try to show you of
>>the error of your ways.
>
> And on this I will go so far as to say you have no idea what you're talking
> about.  I've read all the archives from 6 years ago.  I don't agree with the
> conclusion, feel that it is outdated and that ARIN membership and
> participation has changed significantly enough that this topic deserves
> revisiting.  I've talked to many people who think this policy already exists
> and when they are educated can't believe how stupid it is that it doesn't.
> The previous proposal that failed is from 2004.  It failed 20-7.  27 votes.
> Almost that many people have weighed in on this topic just in the last 24
> hours.  I feel it deserves to go to a vote.
>
> Hopefully, in the mean time, we can have a reasonable discussion on the
> topic without people calling other people spammers, child molesters or
> communists and come to a compromise that everyone can live with.
>
> Aaron
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
>



-- 
Thank You,
Joe Morgan
Joe's Datacenter, LLC
http://joesdatacenter.com